merced academic personnel policies & procedures

of 137

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, MERCED

Merced Academic Personnel Policies & Procedures

July 2014

of 137

MAPP

INTRODUCTION

UC Merced Academic Personnel Policies and Procedures (MAPP) contains campus procedures for implementing Academic Personnel policies. These procedures are intended to supplement the policies set forth in the University of California Academic Personnel Manual (APM), and they must always be used in conjunction with that manual.

ROLE OF ACADEMIC PERSONNEL

The Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (VPAP) is designated by the Chancellor and the Provost and Executive Vice

Chancellor (Provost/EVC) to develop and implement academic review procedures for the Merced campus and to lead the

Academic Personnel Office. The VPAP facilitates all Academic Personnel actions on behalf of the Chancellor and the

Provost/EVC (Chancellor’s designee) via the Academic Personnel Office (APO). All items should be addressed to the

Provost/EVC and submitted to APO via the appropriate Dean’s Office.

The Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) provides recommendations to the Chancellor (or designee) on Academic

Personnel matters. The VPAP is the Chancellor’s and Provost/EVC’s designee for facilitating administrative input and advice

from CAP. Duties and membership of CAP can be found here.

BYLAW 55 UNIT VOTING RIGHTS

Academic Senate Bylaw 55 governs voting rights and other issues related to Academic Personnel procedures for Senate faculty titles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Academic Personnel Office would like to express its gratitude to UC Merced’s sister University of California campuses,

all of whom have allowed us to learn and borrow from their experience in creating campus AP manuals. We have relied on

your manuals as examples for this project, as well as your patience in answering innumerable questions.

We also could not have drafted this document without the input of UC Merced’s own faculty and staff. We look forward to

further collaboration as we continue to revise and expand the MAPP.

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/academic-personnel-policy/

http://senate.ucmerced.edu/committees/academic-personnel-cap

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart1.html

of 137

MAPP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL POLICIES & PROCEDURES

1001 Overview of Academic Titles

1002 Record Maintenance & Access

1003 Conflict of Commitment & Outside Professional Activities (APM 025)

1004 Summer Session (note: include Lecturer summer hiring process)

1005 Voting Procedures

CHAPTER 2: LADDER-RANK FACULTY AND OTHER ACADEMIC SENATE TITLES

01. PROFESSORIAL SERIES (PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE, ASSISTANT)

2011 General Guidelines

2012 Recruitment

2013 Appointment

2014 Merit, Promotion, Appraisal Review

2015 Sabbatical and Other Leaves

2016 Discipline

2017 Grievance Process

02. PROFESSOR IN RESIDENCE SERIES (PLACEHOLDER)


2022 Recruitment

2023 Appointment



2026 Discipline


03. PROFESSOR OF CLINICAL SERIES (PLACEHOLDER) 2031 General Guidelines

2032 Recruitment

2033 Appointment



2036 Discipline


04. ACTING PROFESSORS AND ACTING ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS (IN PROGRESS)


2042 Recruitment

2043 Appointment



2046 Discipline


Note: See 3011 for Acting Assistant Professors

05. LECTURERS WITH SECURITY OF EMPLOYMENT (LPSOE & LSOE) (IN PROGRESS)


2052 Recruitment

2053 Appointment



2056 Discipline


of 137

CHAPTER 3: NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES

01. ACTING ASSISTANT PROFESSORS (IN PROGRESS) 3011 General Guidelines

3012 Recruitment

3013 Appointment



3016 Discipline


02. ADJUNCT PROFESSOR SERIES 3021 General Guidelines

3022 Recruitment

3023 Appointment



3026 Discipline


03. VISITING PROFESSOR SERIES 3031 General Guidelines

3032 Recruitment

3033 Appointment



3036 Discipline


04. RESEARCH PROFESSOR (IN PROGRESS) 3041 General Guidelines

3042 Recruitment

3043 Appointment



3046 Discipline


05. PROJECT SERIES 3051 General Guidelines

3052 Recruitment

3053 Appointment



3056 Discipline


06. SPECIALIST SERIES 3061 General Guidelines

3062 Recruitment

3063 Appointment



3066 Discipline


07. POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS 3071 General Guidelines

3072 Recruitment

3073 Appointment



3076 Discipline


08. AFFILIATES (IN PROGRESS) 3081 General Guidelines

3082 Recruitment

3083 Appointment



3086 Discipline


09. LIBRARIAN SERIES (IN PROGRESS) 3091 General Guidelines

3092 Recruitment

3093 Appointment



3096 Discipline


of 137

10. LECTURERS (UNIT 18) 3101 General Guidelines

3102 Recruitment

3103 Appointment



3106 Discipline


11. ACADEMIC COORDINATOR (IN PROGRESS) 3111 General Guidelines

3112 Recruitment

3113 Appointment



3116 Discipline


12. ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR (IN PROGRESS) 3121 General Guidelines

3122 Recruitment

3123 Appointment



3126 Discipline


CHAPTER 4: STUDENT ACADEMIC TITLES

01. TEACHING ASSISTANT 4011 General Guidelines

4012 Recruitment

4013 Appointment



4016 Discipline


02. TEACHING FELLOW 4021 General Guidelines

4022 Recruitment

4023 Appointment



4026 Discipline


03. GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCHER 4031 General Guidelines

4032 Recruitment

4033 Appointment



4036 Discipline


04. READER 4041 General Guidelines

4042 Recruitment

4043 Appointment



4046 Discipline


05. TEACHING ASSOCIATE 4051 General Guidelines

4052 Recruitment

4053 Appointment



4056 Discipline


of 137

CHAPTER 5: OTHER ACADEMIC TITLES

FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS

DEANS & 100%-TIME FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS

CHAPTER 6: TITLES OF DISTINCTION

6001 Endowed Chairs

6002 Distinguished Professor

6003 Chancellor’s Professor

APPENDIX I: GLOSSARY

GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MAPP 1001 OVERVIEW OF ACADEMIC TITLES

PAGE 7 OF 137

A. ACADEMIC SERIES OVERVIEW

*See APM 133 for details regarding the Eight-Year Limit for certain academic titles

† The combined years as Lecturer PSOE and the years in the title of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer may not exceed a total of eight years of

service (APM 133)

‡ The combined years as Assistant Project Scientist and the years in the title of Assistant Researcher may not exceed a total of eight years

of service (APM 311-17).

Series Ladder Rank Academic Senate Faculty Eligible/Ten

ure/SOE Term Limit*

Assistant Professor • • • • 8 years

Adjunct Professor •

Acting Assistant Professor • • • 8 years

Acting Associate Professor/Acting

Professor • • • •

Visiting Professor Visiting Professor, Mathematics

• 2 years 3 years

Senior/Lecturer Security of Employment

(SOE) • • •

Lecturer Potential Security of

Employment (PSOE) w/ 100% Appt. † • • • 8 years

Senior/Lecturer Potential Security of

Employment (PSOE) w/ <100% Appt • 12

semesters

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer (Unit 18) • 12

t Assistant Professional Researcher ‡ 8 years

Assistant Project Scientist ‡ 8 years

Postdoctoral Scholars 5 years

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/_files/apm/apm-133.pdf




PAGE 8 OF 137

B. COMPARISON OF NON-SENATE TEACHING TITLES

Adjunct Visiting Lecturer

Appointment

Appointments can be FT or

PT. Appointment or

reappointment is made with

a specific ending date.

Maximum terms vary by %

time (<51% vs. 51% +), rank,

and step within rank.

Appointed temporarily;

term not to exceed 1 year at

a time for a maximum of

two years (Math

appointments not to exceed

3 years). No tenure or

security of employment.

Temporary appointments

with potential for

Continuing Appointment

after 6 years, based on

curricular need & Excellence

Review

Criteria

Both Teaching and Research

1. Expected to adhere to UC

Merced's rigorous standards

of scholarship; 2. May be

predominantly engaged in

research or in teaching, as

long as he/she makes some

contribution to both; 3. Also

expected to engage in some

University and public

service

Both Teaching and Research

1. Has held, is on leave

from, or is retired from an

academic or research

position at another

educational institution; or 2.

His/her research, creative

activities or professional

achievement makes

appointment appropriate;

Criteria for appointment

same as for the

corresponding Ladder-Rank

faculty title

Teaching only; covered by

MOU which specifies

personnel procedures,

criteria, and standards of

excellence.

Special Requirements Must contribute to both

research and teaching Should have greater

teaching load than regular

faculty

MOU specifies workload

requirements and

limitations

Recruitment Competitive recruitment

process not required Competitive recruitment

process not required Competitive recruitment

required (except Summer

Session)

Merit/Promotion/Appraisal Reviews

Assistant Adjunct Professors

normally undergo a Mid-

Career Appraisal. Merit, promotion, appraisal

reviews not applicable. Reviewed upon

reappointment for pre-6;

every three years for post-6

Funding

No more than half of

Adjunct appointment may

be supported by State

funds; should be primarily

supported by non-State

funds.

State-funded State-funded

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/nonsenateinstructional_nsi/agreement.html



PAGE 9 OF 137

C. COMPARISON OF RESEARCH TITLES

Professional Research Series Project Series Specialist Series

Purpose

Engage directly in independent

research. The ability to secure

funding does not automatically

qualify individuals for

appointments to the

Professional Research series.

Make significant and creative

contributions to a research

project in the sciences or other

areas such as history or art.

May be ongoing members of a

research team or may be

employed for a limited period

of time to contribute high-level

skills to a specific research or

creative program.

Provide technical or specialized

expertise (e.g., with

instrumentation and research

equipment) in the planning and

execution of a research project

or projects. May be ongoing

members of a research team or

may be employed for a limited

period of time..

Independence

Function as independent

investigators and have the

major responsibility and

leadership for their research

programs. The ability to sustain

an independent research

program is a necessary but not

sufficient criterion for the title

of research (e.g., Physicist).

Not required to have or

develop an independent

research program, but may

work independently. Ordinarily

will carry out research or

creative programs with

supervision of a member of the

Professorial or Professional

Research Series.

Will work under the Director of

an MRU/ORU or a member of

the Professorial, Professional

Research, or Project (e.g.,

Scientist) series.

PI Status

Normally will be PIs.

Appointment to the title of

Research (e.g., Physicist) may

be made to individuals who are

not PIs, if they satisfy the

research qualification and

accomplishments equivalent to

those in the Professorial ranks.

The award of PI status does not

in itself justify an appointment

to the Professional Research

series.

Consistent with campus policy,

may not serve as PIs but may

serve as Co-PIs with members

of the Professorial or

Professional Research series.

The Chancellor may grant an

exception to allow an

appointee to be a PI.

Not expected.

Differences Between Series

Used for appointees who

engage in independent

research equivalent to that

required for the Professor

series and not for appointees

whose duties are limited to

making significant and creative

contributions to a research

project or to providing

technical assistance to a

research activity.

Do not demonstrate the same

capacity for fully independent

research or research leadership

required of the Professional

Research and Professorial

series. Expected to have a

broader range of knowledge

and competency and a higher

level of independence than

appointees in the Specialist

series.

Perform work that is technical

in nature and need not have as

broad a range of knowledge

and competency or execute

original research as do

appointees in the Project (e.g.,

Scientist) series. The Specialist

series is not an entry level into

the Project series.

GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MAPP 1002 RECORD MAINTENANCE & ACCESS

PAGE 10 OF 137

These rules apply to the following series: Professor, Professor in Residence, Acting Professor, Adjunct Professor,

Visiting Professor, University Professor, Lecturer, Lecturer with Potential of Security of Employment (LPSOE),

Lecturer with Security of Employment (LSOE), Senior Lecturer with Potential Security of Employments (SLPSOE),

Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment (SLSOE), Professional Research, Specialist, Project, Librarian.

A. FILE AND RECORD MAINTENANCE

Personnel Review File (“case file”) The personnel review file is maintained by the University. It is the collection of materials pertaining to an

individual for purposes of consideration of active personnel reviews/actions. Final administrative

decisions concerning personnel actions shall be based solely upon the material contained in the

individual’s personnel review file.

Academic Personnel Records The Academic Personnel Record is the individual’s official University file that is kept in the Academic

Personnel Office. It includes the following two categories of materials:

1. Personnel Review Record All materials related to past and current personnel actions from appointment through separation

from UC Merced. Includes:

• Letters of evaluation received by the University with the understanding that they were

confidential and not to be shown unredacted to the candidate;

• The Unit Chair's letter setting forth a personal recommendation in connection with an academic

personnel action concerning the individual; and

• Reports, recommendations, and other related documents from campus and Unit committees

concerning evaluations in connection with an academic personnel action.

2. Other Academic Personnel Records

Other academic personnel records pertaining to the individual as an employee of the University may

include the following materials:

• Miscellaneous correspondence

• Sabbatical records

• Documents relating to administrative appointments

• Employment history other than that contained in the personnel review file

• Retirement documents

• Payroll documents

• Academic Senate correspondence concerning the individual

• Other similar information.

Such materials shall not be referred to or considered in connection with a recommendation or

decision in a personnel action involving an individual unless they are made part of the individual’s

personnel review file by an appropriate administrative officer. Records regarding leaves other than

sabbaticals are maintained in a separate file in APO.

of 137


PAGE 12 OF 137

B. ACCESS BY OTHER PARTIES

University policy and State and Federal laws recognize the individual’s right to privacy, as well as the public’s

right to know about the governance of public institutions. In order to clarify access rights of the individual to

whom academic personnel records and personnel review files pertain and third-party disclosure rights,

University policy classifies information as confidential, non-confidential, personal, or non-personal.

All requests for access to information in academic personnel records should be made to the Vice Provost for

Academic Personnel (VPAP). This applies to all files, wherever they are maintained.

Chart 1002-1 Summary of Types of Academic Personnel Records and Candidate Access Policies

Category Documents Classification Candidate Access Policy*

1

Letters

Solicited internal or external student/colleague

letters of evaluation requested by Candidate

(usually not by formal letter) Confidential May receive redacted copy

2 Unsolicited internal or external letters of

evaluation not submitted by Candidate Not part of case

discussion & not

placed in Case File No Access

3 Candidate- or School-suggested external letters of

evaluation Confidential May receive redacted copies before

Unit recommendation or after final

decision 4 Unit letters/Case Analysis Non-Confidential &

Confidential May receive copy with committee

membership redacted

5 Unsolicited letters added to file by Candidate Non-Confidential May receive copy intact

6 Transmittal memo (Unit Vote) Confidential May receive redacted copy

7 Dean's letter Non-Confidential May receive copy intact after final

decision

8 Qualifications of outside letter writers Confidential No Access

9

Other Documents/Rep

orts

Teaching Evaluations Non-Confidential May receive copy intact

10 Request from CAP for Additional Information Non-Confidential May receive copy and has

opportunity to respond

11 Additional information submitted by Unit or by

Chair on behalf of Unit and certified by Candidate Non-Confidential &

Confidential

May receive copy of additional

information submitted for further

consideration; may receive copy of

redacted confidential material; may

request opportunity to respond

12 CAP Report Non-Confidential May receive copy intact after the

final decision

13 Chancellor's or Designee's Final Decision Non-Confidential Receives copy after the final decision

*The Procedural Safeguard Statement ensures that the candidate is given the opportunity to exercise his or her rights to access.

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/Forms/UCM-AP131.pdf


PAGE 13 OF 137

ACCESS BY ALL OTHER PARTIES

Access by University officers and employees to confidential information shall be strictly limited to those officers

and employees who need such access in the performance of their officially assigned duties, provided that such

access is related to the purpose for which the information was acquired. Governmental agencies have access to

confidential information when required by State or Federal law.

REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATION TO ACADEMIC PERSONNEL RECORDS An individual may request, in writing, from the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (VPAP):

• That a statement of fact in an Academic Personnel Record pertaining to that individual be corrected;

• That material be deleted if it was improperly included; or

• That a statement by the individual, in response to material in the Academic Personnel Record of the

individual, be included in that record.

All requests from individuals that their own records be amended (other than routine updates, etc.) should be

put in writing and should include a clear statement of the change desired and the reason for it. The statement

may be sent to the VPAP via the Academic Personnel Office.

Within a reasonable time period (not more than 30 calendar days), the VPAP will, with advice from the

Committee on Academic Personnel, determine whether the requested correction or deletion will be made. In

any event, the individual has the right to have inserted into the appropriate record any statement he or she

wishes in response to or commenting upon the challenged material.

D. REFERENCES: UNIVERSITY POLICY

APM 158, Rights of Academic Appointees, Including Rights Regarding Records

APM 160, Academic Personnel Records/Maintenance of, Access to, and Opportunity to Request Amendment of

APM 160, Appendix A, Supplemental Information Regarding Academic Policy 160

APM 160, Appendix B, Additional Academic Personnel Policies Pertaining to Academic Records

APM 220-80, Recommendations and Review - General Procedures






GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MAPP 1003 CONFLICT OF COMMITMENT AND OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

PAGE 14 OF 137

Faculty members must manage their outside professional and non-professional activities so that they do not

interfere with their University obligations, ensuring in addition that their compensated outside activities do not

exceed the time limits established in APM 025 (Conflict of Commitment and Outside Activities of Faculty

Members).

This section describes the implementation of APM 025 on the UC Merced campus and applies to all UC Merced

faculty as defined in APM 110-4(15) except those covered by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with an

exclusive bargaining agent. The latter appointees should adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in the

MOU.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES Categories of compensated outside professional activities are defined in APM 025. Depending upon the

category that compensated outside professional activities fall into, they may require prior administrative

approval, adherence to the time limit, and/or annual reporting. The chart below summarizes the requirements

of each category.

Prior Provost/EVC Approval Adherence to Time Limit Annual Reporting

Category I Required Required Required

Category II Not Required Required Required

Category III Not Required Not Required Not Required

All members of the Academic Senate are required to report annually on their participation in Category I and

Category II outside professional activities, regardless of whether they engaged in such activities. This is

accomplished through completion of the Annual Report of Category I and II Compensated Outside Professional

Activities (APM 025 Appendix C).

The relevant Dean or designated Unit Chair must establish and maintain a procedure to request and receive an

Annual Report from each faculty member by November 1 of each year, even if there is no activity to report. He

or she is also responsible for maintaining the original reports and forwarding a copy to the Academic Personnel

Office (APO).

In the Dean’s Recommendation Memo for any faculty member’s academic personnel advancement action, the

Dean must certify that the appointee has complied with all APM 025 requirements during the review period. No

advancement case will be considered unless there is certification from the Dean that the required reports have

been submitted in accordance with this policy.

PRIOR APPROVAL Faculty members must request and receive prior approval from their School’s Dean whenever activities are likely

to raise issues of conflict of commitment (Category I), or when the faculty member intends to involve UC

Merced students in his or her outside professional activities. Prior approval requests should be submitted via the

Unit Chair to the Dean on the APM 025 Appendix B form. The Dean or designated Unit Chair must establish and

maintain a procedure to request and receive prior approval forms. Copies of all reviewed forms should be

forwarded to the Academic Personnel Office. Requests must be submitted to the Dean at least 30 days in advance of expected activity, and no activity may be undertaken without prior approval.

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/_files/apm/apm-025-07-01.pdf





http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CE8QFjAF&url=http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/APM%2520025%2520Appendix%2520C.pdf&ei=4HgJUbijCOGyiQLrl4DgDA&usg=AFQjCNE1yiEsDnQuimVQCGSu9YKOIU8pQA&bvm=bv.41642243,d.cGE



GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MAPP 1003 CONFLICT OF COMMITMENT AND OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

PAGE 15 OF 137

RECORD MAINTENANCE After approval by the Dean, Annual Reports will be kept on file at the School or Unit level, and a copy will be

sent to APO. When undergoing personnel review, faculty members may, at their discretion, include relevant

Annual Reports in their case files.

Under University policy, the Annual Reports are considered to be non-confidential in nature.

As part of the implementation of APM 025, the Office of the President periodically requests summaries and

conducts audits of campus reports on outside professional activities to ensure compliance.

GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MAPP 1005 VOTING PROCEDURES

PAGE 16 OF 137

BACKGROUND Unit opinion on proposed academic personnel actions is in part obtained and reported by means of taking votes.

These votes should be recorded in such a manner that subsequent review levels receive information about Unit

opinion in a coherent and understandable form. Regulations governing Unit voting rights may be found in the

Manual of the Systemwide Academic Senate under Bylaw 55. See the Standing Order of the Regents 105.1 for

the organization of the Academic Senate.

SUMMARY OF BYLAW 55

Bylaw 55 stipulates that each Unit determines its own form of administrative organization, but that no Unit may

be organized in a way that would deny to any of its faculty who are voting members of the Academic Senate

(emeritus faculty are an exception; see “Extension of Voting Privileges” below) the right to vote on substantial

Unit questions, excepting only certain personnel actions, as indicated below:

DESIGNATION OF VOTING RIGHTS

a. All tenured faculty in a Unit have the right to vote on all new Unit appointments that confer

membership in the Academic Senate. Prior to such a vote, all the Unit members of the Academic

Senate must be afforded an opportunity to make their opinions known to the voters.

b. Professors have the right to vote on all cases of promotion to the ranks of Professor and Professor in

Residence and Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine). Professors and Senior Lecturers with Security of

Employment (SOE) have the right to vote on all cases of appointment or promotion to the rank of

Senior Lecturer SOE.

c. Professors and Associate Professors have the right to vote on all cases of promotion to the ranks of

Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer SOE, and Lecturer SOE. Associate Professors may vote on

merit reviews of other Associate Professors.

d. For voting purposes, all cases that involve the removal of the Acting modifier from the title of a

member of the Academic Senate shall be treated as promotions to the rank in question. (NOTE: On

this campus, Acting Assistant Professors are often appointed with the intention that they be

regularized as soon as they complete all PhD requirements. Therefore, the Unit vote on the original

appointment is considered sufficient consultation, unless the Unit indicates otherwise at the time.)

e. All cases of non-reappointments or terminations of Assistant Professors or Lecturers PSOE and

Senior Lecturers PSOE shall be voted upon by those faculty eligible to vote on promotions to the

ranks of Associate Professor or appointments to the titles Lecturer SOE and Senior Lecturer SOE,

respectively.

f. In none of the instances specified above may the right to vote be delegated to a committee. The

actual method of voting shall be determined by the eligible voters, subject to the provision that no

voter may be denied the option to require a secret ballot.

g. The tenured faculty members of a Unit shall establish the method by which personnel matters other

than those listed above are determined. The method adopted must have the approval of the

Academic Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) or its equivalent.

EXTENSION OF VOTING PRIVILEGES

Emeriti/ae as a class may be accorded the right to vote on all non-personnel matters within a Unit from which

they have retired upon a majority vote by secret ballot of the total non-emeritus/a Academic Senate

membership of that Unit. Voting privileges on personnel matters within any Unit may be extended to emeriti/ae

as a class and/or to other Academic Senate members (e.g., Assistant Professors) of that Unit upon at least a two-

thirds majority vote by secret ballot of those faculty entitled to vote on the cases in question under the

provisions of Article B of Bylaw 55 (summarized above). Any extensions of the voting privilege must remain in



http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/so1051.html



GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MAPP 1005 VOTING PROCEDURES

PAGE 17 OF 137

effect for at least one year; thereafter, any faculty member entitled to a vote under the provisions of Article B

may request reconsideration. Votes to reaffirm or to withdraw extensions of the voting privilege shall be taken

by the appropriate procedure just specified above. Neither emeriti/ae nor other Academic Senate members to

whom voting privileges have been extended shall participate in any vote to extend or to withdraw voting

privileges with respect to personnel matters.

Emeriti/ae on Recall status retain voting rights on all academic matters except personnel matters. Voting on

personnel matters may be extended to Recalled Emeriti/ae as a class by the procedures described above.

UC MERCED POLICY AND PROCEDURES Statements made or positions taken by individual faculty members regarding personnel matters are deemed

confidential. Faculty members should not reveal to anyone, whether through inadvertence or by design, any

matters expected to be confidential, including the opinions of others in the Unit and the identities of external

evaluators.

Unit Chairs should review Unit voting procedures as filed on the Statement of School/Unit Voting Procedures

form (available from the Dean’s Offices). A new form should be submitted to the Academic Personnel Office no

later than November 1 of each year.

The method of taking votes is at the discretion of the Unit. It is important that this be done in a way that will

result in a clear picture of faculty opinion about the proposed action. That opinion must be reported in such a

way that those who review the case will be able to understand it without having to send the case file back to the

Unit for clarification.

Physical presence of faculty members in Academic Units is required in discussions intended to lead to a vote of

the Unit on all academic personnel actions, including appointments, merits, promotions, and appraisal reviews.

[Each Unit should be able to determine what is “physical presence” via their voting procedures.] Physical

presence (in addition to attending the meeting in person) can be defined as: participation in real time by phone,

Skype, video-conferencing, or any other technology that allows the faculty member’s voice to be “present and

counted” for the deliberations, discussions, decisions, and/or voting.

Emails, written letters, or other non-real time modes of “participation” submitted after the faculty discussion

should not be attached to the transmittal letter. They are allowed, however, to be submitted beforehand, when

a faculty member requests that the Chair of the committee approve an exception due to circumstances

preventing the faculty member from being physically present for the discussion (e.g., faculty member cannot

attend the meeting wherein the personnel action is to be discussed and voted upon for work-related or family

emergency reasons). In these cases, the Chair of the committee or proceeding will determine the accepted

mode of “participation” (for example, the Chair could read the absent faculty member’s email to those

“physically” present in real time).

LADDER-RANK FACULTY AND OTHER ACADEMIC SENATE TITLES MAPP 201X PROFESSORIAL SERIES (PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE, ASSISTANT)

PAGE 18 OF 137

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2011: General Guidelines

2012: Recruitment

2013: Appointment

2014: Merit, Promotion, Appraisal Review

2015: Sabbatical and Other Leaves

2016: Discipline

2017: Grievance Process


PAGE 19 OF 137

2011: GENERAL GUIDELINES

A. FUNDING (APM 220-16)

It is the policy of the University of California that no appointment shall be made to a title in the Professor series

unless there is an appropriately budgeted provision (“FTE”) for the appointment. No appointment should be

forwarded for review unless such a provision, funded at the proposed salary level, is available.

B. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

A thorough and determined search must be made both inside and outside the University for candidates,

including candidates who are minorities, women, handicapped persons, disabled veterans, and Vietnam-era

veterans. Unit Chairs must ensure compliance with the letter and the spirit of the affirmative action policy.

Formal paperwork documenting the search is required for all appointments to Senate titles.

C. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY (APM 530)

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of November 6, 1986, requires that all employees provide verification

of eligibility to work in the United States. The federal government has designated the I-9 Form, Employment

Eligibility Verification, as the document to be used in this verification process.

During recruitment, special attention must be given to the employment eligibility of any foreign nationals in the

pool to be sure that such candidates obtain visas which allow compensation for services. Appropriate visas can

take several months to obtain, and the Search Chair should ensure that the School staff and Academic Personnel

Office are notified as early as possible of a potential visa case. While an application for a visa cannot be finalized

until the appointment is approved, preliminary inquiries can in some cases help in starting the visa process.

Questions should be referred to the Office of International Affairs (OIA).

D. TIMING OF OFFER

Following University policy, UC Merced policy requires that offers be made before April 1 to candidates from

other UC campuses (APM 510-80.c) and by April 30 to all candidates holding faculty positions at other

institutions that are members of the AAU and/or are in California (APM 500-16.c and APM 501-80.a) if they are

to be effective in the following academic year (i.e., an offer must be made no later than April 30, 2011 for an

appointment starting July 1, 2011). These dates are the deadlines for formal offers to be made by the University.

E. RECRUITING FROM ANOTHER UC CAMPUS (APM 510-0 AND 510-80)

University policy states that it is the obligation of those involved in the consideration of an intercampus

recruitment to pay due regard to the welfare of the University as a whole as well as to the wishes of the

particular appointee and to the effect of the proposed transfer on the two campuses directly concerned.


http://eeoaa.ucmerced.edu/information-resources/policies


https://www.immigrationdirect.com/USCISForms/forms/I-9.jsp

http://international.ucmerced.edu/






PAGE 20 OF 137

Prior to the initiation of negotiation for an intercampus recruitment, the Chancellors of the two campuses

involved shall be informed of the proposed transfer. Ten working days before making the formal written offer of

appointment to the candidate, the Chancellor of the hiring campus shall indicate such intention to the

Chancellor of the campus from which the appointee will be transferring. In all cases, the Chancellor of the

campus to which the appointee is transferring shall also notify the Office of the President.

In the event that any unit at UCM considers recruiting a faculty member from another UC campus, the Academic

Personnel Office will coordinate the notification of the other UC campus. The Academic Personnel Office should

be notified as early in the process as is reasonably possible, and certainly before any offer is made.

The salary offered by the recruiting campus can be no more than one step, or the equivalent of one step, above

the faculty member’s current salary. If the faculty member’s salary is already an off-scale salary, the recruiting

campus may offer the next higher step along with the same off-scale increment. If the home campus is in the

process of granting a salary increase to become effective July 1, the recruiting campus may offer one step above

that increase, pending approval by the home campus. The home campus is permitted to make a counter offer

equivalent to that of the recruiting campus. If both the home and the recruiting campuses agree, higher salary

offers may be made. An offer which includes a promotion is permitted if the salary offer is no more than one

step above the current salary rate, including off-scale, as described above.

If the faculty member being recruited by another UC campus is also being recruited by an outside institution,

then either the home and/or the recruiting UC campus may make a counter offer higher than that described

above in order to compete with the outside offer.

In any proposed intercampus recruitment, either Chancellor may request mediation or intervention by the

Office of the President.

F. COMPETING OFFERS TO AN OUTSIDE CANDIDATE FROM TWO OR MORE UC CAMPUSES (APM 500-16-G)

University policy requires that the same level of salary will be offered by each campus with coordination of the

appropriate salary level to be arranged by the Office of the President. The following procedure is to be followed

to make this coordination possible: when it becomes known to any campus administrative officer that another

campus of the University is also recruiting an individual for an appointment, that officer is obliged to inform the

Chancellor who shall, in turn, inform the Office of the President. The latter will then consult with each of the

Chancellors concerned with the matter and will arrange for the determination of a single appropriate salary.



PAGE 21 OF 137

2012: RECRUITMENT

PROCEDURES

A. FTE REQUESTS

Before recruiting can begin, the Academic Unit’s FTE request must be approved by the Provost and Executive

Vice Chancellor.

B. SEARCH COMMITTEE

The Search Chair is appointed by the Unit Chair in consultation with the Dean (or designee) of the School in

which the Unit resides. The Unit Chair then nominates the Search Committee members in consultation with the

Search Chair. Each Unit should make provisions for soliciting input on the membership of the Committee from

the faculty of the Unit. Following best practices for faculty recruitment, the Dean should verify that the

composition of the Search Committee represents a diverse cross-section of the faculty.

In cross-Unit searches, the Provost/EVC will develop a process to select a Committee made up of members from

appropriate Units, in consultation with Deans and Chairs.

C. ADVERTISING

After consultation with the Chair of the Academic Unit, the Search Committee develops the Search Plan, creates

advertisements, and develops an external job advertisement list that fulfills diversity goals. All Professor series

appointments must be advertised nationally in suitable academic or professional publications and must allow at

least 30 days following the appearance of the advertisement for interested applicants to apply.

If the Search Committee wishes to extend the position beyond the original closing date, the Search Chair must

inform APO of the new closing date prior to the date the position closes. In exceptional cases, a closed search

may be reopened for a period of 15 days at the request of the Search Chair, with approval from the Vice Provost

for Academic Personnel.

Generally, advertisements should contain the following: program or Academic Unit name, position level,

teaching duties (if appropriate), preferred research area, and necessary qualifications and experience as well as

the following affirmative action statement:

The University of California, Merced is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer with a strong institutional commitment to the achievement of diversity among its faculty, staff and students. The University is supportive of dual-career couples.

The Academic Personnel Office is responsible for approving all ads and recruitment posted through AP Recruit.

The Search Chair, or designee, prepares and submits the AP Recruit - Search Plan for approval. Approved ads will

be posted in external journals and websites by School staff.

D. POOL OF CANDIDATES

As the search progresses, the Search Chair, Unit Chair and Dean review statistical applicant pool data

throughout the search and pursue additional diversity search methods as needed. At the end of the recruiting

period and prior to the beginning of the selection process, it is important to determine that the pool of

candidates contains women and minorities in reasonable proportion to their availability and that appropriate

affirmative action search measures have been taken. The authority to postpone, extend, or cancel a search for

reasons of inadequate diversity lies with the Dean. Please consult the University of California Diversity website.

E. SELECTION PROCESS

After the closing date of the search has passed, the formal application review process can begin when the

Search Committee, in consultation with the Dean and the Unit Chair, determines that the pool composition is

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/_files/documents/affirmative.pdf

http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/working-at-uc/our-values/diversity.html


PAGE 22 OF 137

appropriate. Following this, the Search Committee selects a short list of candidates for campus interviews. This

group of candidate should demonstrate: 1. strong qualifications constant with the call for applications, and 2.

reasonable diversity based on availability in the field or subfield. This short list is forwarded to the Dean for

formal approval. The Dean, after consultation with the search committee, has the authority to postpone,

extend, or cancel a search for reasons of inadequate diversity on the short list. In this event, the Dean shall

provide a written justification describing the process leading up to the decision to close the search.

After the campus interviews, the Search Committee recommends a final candidate. After review of the

application file, the Bylaw 55 Unit votes on the proposed appointment according to the Unit’s approved voting

procedures. The Appointment File is forwarded to APO for preparation for review by the Committee on

Academic Personnel, according to procedures outlined in MAPP 2013 below.

F. RETENTION OF RECORDS

Complete records of the search, including applicant files and any Search Committee documents, must be

maintained for 4 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the specific recruitment activity has ended. The

Search Committee Chair completes the disposition reasons for all candidates. The Academic Personnel Office is

the office of record for the recruitment records.

G. WAIVER OF RECRUITMENT

Occasionally, an opportunity to hire someone of outstanding ability, or under a special circumstance, will arise.

It may not be possible to comply with all affirmative action procedures. If this is clearly the case, a search waiver

may be requested from the Provost/EVC. Such a request may be granted if a strong case can be made that there

is a unique and very important opportunity for UCM at hand (e.g., a highly distinguished faculty member,

spousal hire, President’s Postdoc). Care should be exercised in requesting exceptions in order that their value

does not become eroded by too-frequent use. The Chair of the Academic Unit proposing the appointment shall

consult the Dean to determine if an FTE may be allocated. A vote of the Unit’s faculty on the waiver of

recruitment shall then take place and a Transmittal memo recording the vote is sent forward to the

Provost/EVC. If there is approval from the Provost/EVC, the appointment process follows the standard

procedures outlined in MAPP 2013.


PAGE 23 OF 137

2013: APPOINTMENT An appointment (as distinguished from a reappointment, merit increase, or promotion) occurs when a person is

employed with the University for the first time, or when a University employee is appointed to a title in a

different personnel program or academic series. This section will cover some of the University and campus

policies pertaining to the appointment of members of the Academic Senate; however, all persons involved in the

appointment review process must also refer to policies contained in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM) and pertinent sections of this manual for more detailed statements of policies affecting use of titles, criteria for

appointment, affirmative action, the review process, etc.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT FILES

A. SALARIES (APM 600)

Academic Salary Scales Academic salaries are based upon salary scales. These are published and issued through the University

of California Office of the President Academic Personnel Office and can be found here.

Rank and Step When establishing the rank and step for a proposed appointee, a Unit should give due consideration to

the candidate’s experience, accomplishments, and standing relative to others at the same level in the

same discipline at other UC campuses.

Off-Scale Salaries Off-scale salaries may be used when necessary to meet competitive conditions. (See APM 620-14 for a

complete list of eligible titles) Off-scale salaries for acting appointees are determined administratively in

the same manner as for regular ranks. If counter offers arise during the course of negotiations, the Unit

should document these offers.

Effective Date of Employment The effective date of an appointment for purposes of payroll and other record keeping is the first day on

which salary commences. The beginning date of service for a new appointee, or of service in a new title

for a continuing appointee, is the first day on which the appointee is required to be on duty under the

terms of the appointment. The effective date is always either July 1 or January 1. An academic-year

appointment is also known as a nine-month appointment and refers to the period in which an academic

appointee renders services, i.e., the academic year, from the beginning of the fall term through the end

of the spring term (APM 600-4-b).

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

If the Search Chair and the candidate proposed for appointment are close collaborators, the Search Chair should

not participate in the preparation of the appointment case file. Another independent senior faculty member

should oversee the process and prepare the Case Analysis and Transmittal Letter.

If a recommended appointment will result in a near relative being employed in the same Academic Unit as an

existing faculty member, the existing faculty member may not participate in any academic review actions

affecting the near relative. (For the definition of “near relative,” refer to APM 520: Appointment of Near

Relatives.) The Transmittal Memo for the appointment case should state that the existing faculty member did

not participate in the recruitment or vote on the appointment of the near relative, and will not participate in any

future academic review decisions for the candidate if he or she is appointed.

If the Unit Chair or any faculty member contributing to the file has a financial interest in a company employing a

potential faculty member, that information should be included in the file, and such individuals should recuse

themselves from contributing to the appointment case file.




http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/compensation/2014-academic-salary-scales.html





PAGE 24 OF 137

APPOINTMENT FILE DOCUMENTATION & PROCEDURES The documentation required to support a recommendation for appointment to an Academic Senate title

includes recruitment data, candidate’s documents, extramural letters of reference, the Case Analysis, the Dean’s

Letter, the Salary Justification memo and the Transmittal Letter.

Appointment files should be documented as carefully as promotion files, addressing all the relevant criteria and

providing reviewers with appropriate evidence of excellence in all categories of review.

A. RECRUITMENT DATA

Detailed recruiting and equal opportunity and diversity procedures are described in MAPP 2012.

• Search Report

• Advertisements

Note: CAP finds it useful when the Unit includes in the Case Analysis a statement about the scope of the search.

B. CANDIDATE’S DOCUMENTS

The candidate provides the following key documents:

1. Curriculum Vitae

2. Publications - Publications should be listed on the Curriculum Vitae and should be numbered in

sequence to the extent possible. Copies of the most significant publications, reviews, and/or exhibits,

should be included whenever possible, in either printed or electronic form. For easy reference, each

publication should be numbered as it is numbered on the Curriculum Vitae.

3. Student Evaluations - Copies of individual student evaluations should be included if possible.

4. Other documents requested by the Unit (e.g., Statement of Teaching Philosophy, Statement of

Research).

C. EXTRAMURAL LETTERS

Extramural letters of evaluation should be from qualified and distinguished authorities.1 When letters are

handwritten, the Unit is asked to prepare a typed version. Letters in foreign languages should be translated into

English.

a. Soliciting Extramural Letters

The solicitation of letters for appointments is done by the School staff working with the Search

Committee Chair and the Unit Chair. For appointments at the level of Assistant Professor, Steps I-III,

three to five letters from candidate-suggested reviewers are required. For appointments at the levels of

Assistant Professor, Step IV and above (including all Associate and Full Professor levels), three to four

letters from candidate-suggested reviewers and at least five letters from School-suggested reviewers are

preferred. Of the School-suggested letters, two to three should be from a UC campus whenever

possible. In rare cases, candidates may identify individuals whom they prefer not be solicited. Should the

Unit

1 Suggestions for Increasing Response Rate for Letters of Reference

a) Start soliciting letters as early as possible

b) Informal requests are encouraged

c) Send request from known personage (i.e., Dean or Unit Chair)

d) Do not wait until case materials are perfect


PAGE 25 OF 137

decide to solicit from any individual whom the candidate has requested not be contacted, the Case

Analysis should explain why that individual was contacted despite the candidate’s request (e.g., best or

most knowledgeable in the field).

The Search Chair should solicit evaluations from individuals who are experts in the candidate’s field and

who are able to provide an objective evaluation of the candidate’s work.

For candidates just completing degree or postdoctoral work and being proposed for entry-level

positions, letters from supervisors are appropriate. For appointments at higher levels, however, it is

desirable to avoid excessive use of external referees whom the reviewers may not regard as objective

evaluators either because they are too close to the candidate professionally (e.g., close collaborators,

doctoral supervisors), or because they have a personal relationship with the candidate. Contact between

the Chair and individuals from whom letters are being solicited is permissible in order to encourage

response after the formal request has been sent, but great care must be taken not to bias or influence

the judgment of the referee.

Letters soliciting such external evaluations must contain the following:

• A description of the nature of the position to be filled; e.g., probationary or tenured professorship,

• An explanation of the significance of the level of the position so that the referee can evaluate

achievement in relation to UC criteria for appointments, especially at the top steps of the series (VI, VII, VIII

and Above Scale),

• A request for analytical review of the candidate’s performance under the applicable criteria and

comparison to other scholars in the field at similar rank, and

• The following confidentiality statement:

Although the contents of your letter may be passed on to the candidate at prescribed stages of the review process, your identity will be held in confidence. The material made available will lack the letterhead, the signature block, and material below the latter. Therefore, material that would identify you, particularly your relationship to the candidate, should be placed below the signature

block. In any legal proceeding or other situation in which the source of the confidential information is sought, the University does its utmost to protect the identity of such sources.

Referees should be urged to provide critical evaluation and analysis. The letter soliciting evaluations

must not contain leading suggestions (e.g., “we need your help to persuade our reviewers that our

candidate...”).

b. Sample Letters of Solicitation

Include a sample of the letter sent soliciting outside evaluations in the Case File. If the letters soliciting

evaluations from different sources (i.e., for candidate-suggested vs. School-suggested letters) are

substantially different, include samples of all such letters.

Exhibits A, B, C, and D contain examples of typical letters soliciting external evaluations. Exhibit A

concerns the appointment of an Assistant Professor. Exhibit B was written for the recruitment of an

Associate Professor, thus it refers to tenure. Exhibits C and D are for high-level professors, and as such

outline UC criteria for appointment to those levels.

c. List of Reviewers

Extramural reviewers who have provided confidential letters of evaluation should not be identified in

the case materials except by means of a coded list which indicates the names and qualifications of all

those from whom letters were solicited. It is also important to list letter writers who were asked to

supply an evaluation but did not respond. It should not be assumed that non-response means non-

support for the candidate. When referring to a particular letter in the Case Analysis or any other case

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Appt%20Solicitation%20Letters%20(Exhibits%20A-E).doc

of 137

materials, the letter writer should only be identified by the code assigned on the list (e.g., “Reviewer A”).

Sample Lists of Reviewers may be found here and here.

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Appt%20Sample%20-%20List%20of%20Candidate%20Suggested%20Reviewers%206.21.07.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Appt%20Sample%20-%20List%20of%20School%20Suggested%20Reviewers%206.21.07.pdf


PAGE 27 OF 137

D. CASE ANALYSIS

The Case Analysis is prepared by the Search Committee, all of whose members must sign it to certify agreement.

Before preparing the Case Analysis, writers should consult the “Instructions to the Review Committee” for the

appropriate series (APM 210).

The Case Analysis should 1) set out and explain the recommendation of the Search Committee for appointment,

and 2) should support the recommendation by evaluating analytically, not merely describing, the candidate’s

performance and/or potential in each of the areas of responsibility expected from UC faculty: teaching; research

and creative activity; professional competence and activity; and University and public service. The Case Analysis

should be professional, objective, balanced and concise. The assessment put forth in the Case Analysis should be

supported by evidence from extramural letters, although excessive quotation, as well as rhetorical statements,

should be avoided.

The candidate’s scholarly and/or creative activities should be critically evaluated. The evaluation should provide

a careful assessment of the craftsmanship, originality, significance and impact of the candidate’s work. The

assessment should not merely state that the work is significant or has had impact. It should indicate what is

significant about the work and the nature and extent of impact. Writers should also indicate the relative stature

of the candidate in his or her field.

Performances or other creative activities should not merely be listed, they should be evaluated by the

Committee. In certain fields such as art, architecture, dance, music, literature, and drama, distinguished creation

should receive consideration equivalent to that accorded to distinction attained in research. In evaluating artistic

creativity, the Committee should attempt to define the candidate’s merit in light of such criteria as originality,

scope, richness, and depth of creative expression. It should be recognized that in music, drama and dance,

distinguished performance, including conducting and directing, is evidence of the candidate’s creativity (APM 210.1.d.2). Reviews of the work and publications or other outside evaluation should be discussed and copies

included in the Case File.

The placement of publications should be addressed. The quality of journals or presses in which work appears can

be an important measure of the impact and quality of the candidate’s work. Where the placement is unusual, or

may seem so to reviewers outside the Unit, the Case Analysis should discuss the implications of this. For those

works that appear in conference proceedings, information about the publication is needed as there is large

variation within and amongst disciplines. The information may include, as appropriate, the conference’s

acceptance and publication rates, whether the paper was accepted on the basis of title or abstract only, and the

archival status of the conference proceedings.

In assessing the types of contracts, grants, or fellowships awarded to the candidate, the Case Analysis should

address the importance and the expectations of such support for the particular discipline.

Any Case Analysis proposing Professor, Step VI or above must include a discussion of the candidate’s impact and

stature, including national and/or international honors received, election to distinguished societies, and other

evidence of the individual’s outstanding leadership in the profession.

E. FACULTY VOTE

The Case Analysis and supporting materials are made available for faculty review for a length of time

determined by the Unit, after which the Search Chair (or designee) presents the Case Analysis to the faculty and

allows for a full discussion. The discussion should focus on the academic merits of the case, and not on any

extraneous issues. Affirmative action policies should be adhered to. [UCM AA Policy and UC AA Policy]. At the

conclusion of this discussion, a vote is taken according to the Unit’s bylaws and voting procedures. Comments

are not permitted on the ballots, as all points of discussion should have been raised beforehand during the

group meeting.





http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/working-at-uc/our-values/diversity.html

of 137

Academic Units should develop policies that encourage the maximum number of faculty members to participate

in the evaluation of candidates. Excessive abstentions or a small number of votes relative to the total number of

faculty eligible to vote are likely to raise concerns for other reviewers evaluating the file.


PAGE 29 OF 137

F. TRANSMITTAL LETTER

The vote and the faculty discussion are recorded in the Transmittal Letter.

The Transmittal Letter is a critical component of the appointment case file as it is the record of faculty opinion

and should include any pertinent discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, as well as a

recommendation for the step and effective date of the proposed appointment.

In cases of abstentions or recusals, the Transmittal Letter should provide a reason for these actions whenever

possible.

G. DEAN’S RECOMMENDATION LETTER

The Dean assesses the Transmittal Letter, Case Analysis and other evidence provided in the Case File to ensure

that the Unit’s review is fair and rigorous in maintaining University standards. The Dean’s Letter should be an

independent assessment of the case. In the Letter, the Dean puts forth his or her recommendation regarding the

appointment and provides additional analysis as needed.

H. SALARY JUSTIFICATION

In a separate memo, the Dean provides a recommendation as to the salary associated with the proposed

appointment, based on the University of California Academic Salary Scales plus any off-scale increment.

OTHER APPOINTMENTS

A. SPLIT APPOINTMENTS

Whenever a candidate has a split appointment (with the FTE split between two Academic Units), a joint

committee comprised of faculty from both Units decides which will be the lead Unit. The lead Unit will write the

single Case Analysis. The Case Analysis covers the candidate’s research, teaching, professional activity, and

University and public service from both Schools‘ perspectives. Each Academic Unit will vote separately and

prepare separate Transmittal Letters. Each School Dean will write a separate Dean’s Recommendation Letter

and Salary Justification Letter.

B. APPOINTMENTS WITHOUT SALARY

An individual appointed to a faculty title in one Unit may be invited to hold a joint appointment without salary in

another Unit. Such appointments, while easily renewable, are made on a year-to-year basis.

C. TRANSFER TO ANOTHER UNIT THROUGH FTE REASSIGNMENT

Instances may arise in which a faculty member requests that his or her position be transferred from one Unit to

another on campus. Cases of requests to transfer an FTE will be addressed on an ad hoc basis, and decisions will

be made by the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor after thorough examination of the request and the

potential impact on each Unit. The process of reviewing the request will minimally include:

• Consent of the Unit and Dean that would be receiving the transfer conveyed via Dean’s memo and

Transmittal memo to Provost/EVC via APO.

• Consultation with the Dean of the Unit from which the individual is transferring, if in a different School.

Dean’s memo conveyed to Provost/EVC via APO.

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/compensation/index.html


PAGE 30 OF 137

2014: MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW The following policies and procedures have been developed to support the University’s goal of retaining high

quality faculty. It is the policy of the University to evaluate objectively and thoroughly each candidate for

promotion or merit increase.

In 1977 (revised in 1992), the University adopted policies to ensure fairness in the academic review process.

These policies are contained in APM 160, including Appendices A and B; APM 200, APM 220, and in the UC

Merced Procedural Safeguard Statement. Unit Chairs are responsible for adherence to these policies and

procedures and should provide copies of the pertinent APM and MAPP sections to each candidate. Unit Chairs

are required to complete the Procedural Safeguard Statement with each candidate.

ELIGIBILITY FOR REVIEW Faculty members are eligible for advancement or promotion each year; however, advancement usually occurs in

conjunction with completion of “normal” time in step (see Chart 2014-I below). Throughout this document, the

term “eligible” refers to the completion of normal time in step with the understanding that nothing precludes

submission of a file during any review cycle.

The Academic Personnel Office maintains the Eligibility List, which indicates the time at rank and step for each

faculty member. Prior to March 1st of each year, APO sends out notification letters to those faculty members

who are eligible for an Academic Personnel action.

The Unit Chair is responsible for making certain that there is an annual informal review of the status and

performance of each faculty member in the Unit with regard to her or his time at rank and step (APM 220-80.b). Each faculty member is required to submit a current academic record (e.g., curriculum vitae, Bio-bibliography

form, etc.) to her or his Dean’s Office each July 15, which will in part form the basis for this review.

Units are encouraged to review each faculty member who is at normal time in step and to make a

recommendation for or against advancement. Tenured faculty members may request to defer review, but a

deferral request will not be considered as fulfilling the mandatory quinquennial review (see section F below).

Such requests must be approved by the Dean. Assistant Professors may not defer.

Note: Appendix 2014-A provides a description and information regarding the Mid-Career Appraisal (MCA), also known as the Formal Review, which is an assessment of an Assistant Professor’s progress toward tenure and is

separate from the merit or advancement review. See Appendix 2014-B for information regarding Career Equity Reviews, which do not fall under the category of normal advancement actions.

A. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Service in an “Acting” or a “Visiting” title does not technically count toward years at rank and step, though it

does count in determining years toward the eight-year limit to tenure (APM 133). This service, however, should

be considered in any full-career review.

Regarding periods of leave, the issue of whether or not a particular leave counts towards time at rank or step,

and/or towards the eight-year limit, needs to be resolved in consultation with APO and the Provost/EVC at the

time the leave is requested. (MAPP 2015, APM 200-19) Relevant information regarding approved leaves will be

recorded on the Faculty History Cards provided to the School and CAP by APO.

B. NORMAL TIME AT STEP

“Normal” time refers to the standard rate at which the majority of faculty will progress through the ranks and

steps. Normal merit increases within Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor I-V ranks, although

less critical than promotions, are not automatic and do require demonstrated merit. See Appendix 2014-C

below for information regarding use of the Short Form for Normal Merits.








http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/Forms/UCM-AP134.xls


PAGE 31 OF 137

Chart 2014 I Normal Time in Step Assistant Professor

Associate P f

Full P f

Distinguished Professor Abo e Scale

Normal Period of Service at St

Step Step Step Step Step Period I 2 years II 2 years III 2 years

IV* 2 years V I 2 years VI II 2 years

III 2 years IV I 3 years V II 3 years III 3 years IV 3 years V 3 or more years VI 3 or more years VII 3 or more years VIII 3 or more years IX 4 or more years

No Steps/just merits 4 or more years between merit

advancements *See Section E below “Postponement of Tenure Review” below for timing of the tenure review. Visiting

Assistant Professor and Acting Assistant Professor appointments count toward the eight-year rule

C. ACCELERATION

Advancement to a higher step before normal eligibility constitutes an “acceleration.” The campus encourages

Units to put forward deserving candidates for acceleration. Advancement to a higher rank must meet the

appropriate criteria for promotion (APM 210-1 and APM 220-18-b). The minimum criterion for acceleration

within rank is excellence in all areas of review during the abbreviated review period. In addition, for one-year

acceleration within rank, the record for the abbreviated review period must reflect a level of accomplishment

commensurate with the normal on-time merit.

For multiple-year accelerations within rank, the record for the abbreviated review period must reflect excellence

in all areas of review commensurate with the proposed step, as well as performance deemed to be especially

outstanding in at least one area as the driving force for the acceleration.

The Unit and Dean are expected to explicitly address the acceleration recommendation in their letters. Multiple-

year accelerations and those at the senior Professor and Above-Scale steps should be particularly well-justified.

A promotion is not considered an acceleration, regardless of years at rank or step when a candidate is advancing

to the “normal” step in the next rank. The Case Analysis for promotions, however, must clearly demonstrate

unusual or exceptional achievement (APM 210).



http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-210.pdf


PAGE 32 OF 137

Chart 2014-II: Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor (Tenure)

To Associate Professor

Steps I II III IV

From Assistant Professor

I, II, III, IV Normal 2-year

acceleration 4-year

acceleration 6-year

acceleration

V Lateral Normal 2-year

acceleration 4-year

acceleration

VI Lateral Normal 2-year

acceleration

Chart III: Promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor

To Full Professor

Steps I II III IV

From Associate Professor

I, II, III Normal 3-year

acceleration 6-year

acceleration 9-year

acceleration

IV Lateral Normal 3-year

acceleration 6-year

acceleration

V Lateral Normal 3-year

acceleration

D. OVERLAPPING STEPS

The normal periods of service are described in APM 220-18-b. Overlapping steps are those in which the

published salaries vary by $100. The following are overlapping steps in the Professor series:

Assistant Professor V → Associate Professor I

Assistant Professor VI → Associate Professor II

Associate Professor IV → Professor I

Associate Professor V → Professor II

E. POSTPONEMENT OF TENURE REVIEW


of 137

Per APM 133-0.a (the so-called ”Eight-Year Rule”), an Assistant Professor shall not be continued after the eighth

year of service unless promoted to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure. How to calculate eight years of service.

The following UC Merced policy shall be applied beginning with those candidates who are eligible for formal

appraisal (“Mid-Career Appraisal” or “MCA;” see Appendix 2014-A below) during the academic year 2011-12:

In the latter half of an Assistant Professor’s fifth year, the Academic Unit should determine whether the tenure

review should take place, as normal, in the sixth year or whether circumstances exist which warrant

postponement of the tenure review until the seventh year. Postponement of the tenure review is rarely granted,

but may be justified if the candidate has significant work in progress which will be evaluated within a year but

not in time to be included in a sixth-year review.


http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/temp/Schedule_for_calc_16_Semester_V3.docx

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/16Schedule.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/16Schedule.pdf


PAGE 34 OF 137

To request postponement, the Assistant Professor should provide tangible evidence to his or her Dean that the

record will change significantly during the sixth year. The Academic Unit should discuss the evidence and vote

for or against the postponement of tenure review. The Dean shall add his or her argument for or against

postponement in a Dean’s Memo to be added to the Case File. Form UCM-AP 151 itemizes the documentation

required for the postponement of tenure request. Requests for postponement of tenure are due to APO by

September 15 of each year. APO will route the file to CAP which will provide a recommendation to the

Provost/EVC who will make a final determination.

Should the postponement request be denied, the full tenure review file will be due to APO as usual on

December 15. The candidate’s materials, therefore, should be submitted to the School within ten days of the

candidate being notified that the request has been denied.

Should a postponement be granted, the candidate will not be eligible for any other personnel actions (e.g., merit

review) during the postponement period.

F. MANDATORY QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW

All faculty members must be reviewed at least every five years (APM 200-0) if not reviewed at normal time in

step. The purpose of this mandatory quinquennial review is to ensure that the performance of a faculty member

is appraised at regular intervals, to assess the faculty member’s productivity, and to identify what more needs to

be accomplished for advancement. The focus of this review should be to provide constructive feedback aimed at

supporting the candidate’s future success in all areas of assessment.

Quinquennial Reviews will follow the general procedures outlined in APM 220-80 and MAPP 2014. Candidates

will be notified of the requirement to undergo review via a Letter of Eligibility issued by APO on or about March 1 of the fourth year of service since the last review, and will follow the Schedule for AP Actions in preparing and

submitting review materials. The review is to take place during the fifth year. If the candidate does not provide

materials upon request, the review will proceed with the documentation available to the Unit and contained in

the faculty member’s personnel file, as assembled and submitted by the Unit Chair. It is acknowledged that this

documentation might not be current and could therefore affect the outcome of the review.

Based on review of the submitted materials, the reviewing entities will recommend one of three outcomes:

• Advancement (merit or promotion): Performance Satisfactory

• No Advancement: Performance Satisfactory

• No Advancement: Performance Unsatisfactory

If the Quinquennial Review outcome from the Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) is Performance

Unsatisfactory, the faculty member is considered to be not in good standing for the duration of the performance

improvement period, and will not be eligible for any academic leaves until the final outcome of the review has

been determined by CAP to be Satisfactory. In the case of an outcome of Performance Unsatisfactory, CAP will

provide information on the area(s) in which the performance is not consistent with the series, rank and step of

the candidate. The Unit Chair and the candidate will be required to submit a Performance Improvement Plan

(PIP) that sets forth performance expectations to address those areas which have been identified as

unsatisfactory. It is assumed that satisfactory performance will be maintained in all other areas. The PIP shall

generally be one year in duration, and must be submitted to the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (VPAP)

within thirty calendar days of notification of the review outcome.

The candidate under review must submit a progress report to his or her Unit Chair one year after the PIP is

approved. The Chair prepares an assessment of the progress to date and submits the entire report to the Dean’s

Office. The Dean provides an assessment and submits the report to CAP via APO. CAP shall make a summary

recommendation based on the accomplishments and activities during the improvement plan period. CAP’s

recommendation shall consider whether the candidate, upon re-review, should be given a rating of Performance

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/xls/SAPA.pdf




of 137

Satisfactory or Performance Unsatisfactory. CAP’s recommendation will be forwarded to the VPAP who will

make


PAGE 36 OF 137

a recommendation to the Provost/EVC, who has final authority on all Quinquennial Reviews. If performance is

Satisfactory, then the Quinquennial Review is considered complete and the candidate will be eligible for

academic review in the next appropriate review cycle for his or her rank and step. If performance is

Unsatisfactory, then further action that is consistent with APM 075 will be undertaken.

Upon discussion between the Unit Chair and the candidate, a change in series may be considered during the

review period or subsequent period of improvement if it is determined that the candidate’s performance would

satisfactorily meet the criteria in a different series (APM 075-II.A). A change of series must meet all of the

relevant policy requirements such as faculty vote and academic search as appropriate. Upon approval of this

request by the Provost/EVC, a Case File for the new appointment would be prepared and submitted for review.




PAGE 37 OF 137

PREPARATION OF THE CASE REVIEW FILE

Note: For “normal” merit reviews, use of the so-called Short Form is permissible. See Appendix 2014-C below for information.

Once a faculty member has been informed of her or his eligibility for an Academic Personnel action, he or she is

expected to assemble a file of documentation supporting the proposed action. (In some cases the faculty

member may be permitted to defer review; see Eligibility for Review above). This file includes: summary bio-

bibliographies from the period to be reviewed; curriculum vitae; self-statement; publications or other creative

work; and teaching evaluations and syllabi.

It is the candidate’s and the Unit Chair’s responsibility to prepare a file that presents the scholarly and

intellectual contributions of the candidate in each area of review. Review will be based only on what is

contained in the file. It is in the candidate’s interest to provide all pertinent material and information to the Unit

and to be certain that the file is complete.

It is the expectation of the Deans, CAP and the VPAP that all faculty having advancement cases will provide their

updated material to the Unit/Dean’s Office as early as possible. Deadlines for submission of materials are

established by the Schools and must be adhered to in order to meet Academic Personnel deadlines.

Cooperation in providing information for one’s personnel file is a professional obligation without which the

review process cannot be initiated.

A. BIO-BIBLIOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL MEASURES

Digital Measures is an online faculty database which assists faculty in tracking teaching, research and service

activities. Once a faculty member’s data are entered into the system, she or he can extract from the database a

subset of information to produce a Bio-bibliography in the format required by CAP. Use of Digital Measures,

while not mandatory, is strongly encouraged. In any case, use of the CAP-approved format is required.

The Bio-bibliography should clearly indicate which new activities and publications should be credited since the

last review. Articles “in press” are credited as accepted for publication and cannot be counted in later reviews as

new activities. If there are joint publications, it is important that the role of the faculty member in the research

be described and defined.

B. PUBLICATIONS AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Copies of all publications, reviews and/or exhibits, including work in press, should be included for the period

under review. Abstracts, book reviews, and letters published in professional journals should be grouped

separately. In the case of “in press” or “accepted” work, an acceptance letter from the publisher should be

included. For easy reference, publications must be numbered the same on the bio-bibliography as on the

curriculum vitae.

For actions that do not require a career review, the general rule is that evidence may only be counted once and

only in the review period to which the evidence pertains. In some instances, determining the review period is

fairly straightforward; for example, a grant should be included in the review period in which it was awarded. For

publications, the relevant review period can be less apparent because a research manuscript can be described in

four stages: “in preparation,” “submitted,” “accepted (or in press),” and “published (or in print).” The Case File

should never pay attention to or count manuscripts that are in the “in progress” or “submitted” status. Both

“accepted” and “published” statuses can be relevant to a review period, but any given manuscript can only be

referred to or counted in one review period. In other words, if a Case Analysis or other materials in the Case File

refer to or count a manuscript when it is “accepted” in one review cycle, it may not be referred to or counted in

the next, even if its status has changed to “published.”

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/temp/Normal%20Merit%20Short%20Form%20NEW.xls


https://www.digitalmeasures.com/login/ucmerced/faculty/status/showStatus.do

of 137

For actions that require a career review, all scholarly, teaching and service evidence are pertinent to the review

and may be addressed in the Case File. This includes materials prior to an individual’s appointment at UC

Merced


PAGE 39 OF 137

as well as research that has not yet been published or grants that are not yet funded. Candidates should be

cautioned, however, that individual items may only be counted in one review and may not be submitted for

evaluation in subsequent reviews (until the next career review). Careful consideration, therefore, should be

given when determining whether to put forth materials that are in the “submitted” or “in progress” stages.

Should the status of these items change to “in press,” “published,” or “funded” during the next or subsequent

review period, the items will not be viewed as new work by CAP and thus will not be given any credit until the

next full career review.

C. SELF-STATEMENT

The self-statement is a narrative summary of the candidate’s accomplishments in the four evaluative areas

(teaching, research or creative activity, professional activity and University and public service) (APM 210-1.d) during the review period. It should be viewed as a supplement to or enhancement of the information contained

in the Bio-bib and curriculum vitae, not merely a recap of material provided elsewhere.

D. TEACHING MATERIALS

Student evaluations and course syllabi for the period under review should be included in the Case File. Other

evidence of teaching such as peer evaluations, assessment of learning outcomes, or other assessments may be

included.

E. EXTRAMURAL LETTERS

If the proposed action requires solicitation of extramural letters of reference from experts in the candidate’s

field, the eligible faculty member should submit a list of proposed referees to the School’s AP staff by the end of

Spring Semester. Letters of reference are required for all appointments and promotions, and for advancement

to Professor, Step VI and Professor, Above Scale. The School staff shall then solicit letters from the candidate-

suggested list as well as from a list of School-suggested reviewers. Schools should obtain, at the very least, three

letters from the candidate’s list of potential external reviewers and three letters from the School’s own list of

potential external reviewers. [Note: letters from School-suggested reviewers are not required for appointments

to Assistant Professor I-III]

Extramural reviewers should be selected from academic or research institutions with standards comparable to

the University of California. Preferably, at least two to three letters should come from individuals at UC

campuses. The reviewers should normally be full Professors or of equivalent stature, although occasionally it

may be appropriate to ask an Associate Professor to provide a letter for an Assistant Professor coming up for

tenure. For promotions to the highest levels, such as Professor Step VI and Above Scale, as well as for

accelerations, it is helpful to have some letters from within the UC system that speak directly to the issue of the

appropriateness of the step and/or the magnitude of the acceleration proposed. Individuals outside the system

may not be familiar with the criteria for the highest levels in the UC system. Of course, non-UC letters are also

expected because the highest levels require distinction at the national and international level. For normal merit

increases up to Professor Step V, the Case Analysis is the primary source of essential evaluative information and

letters of reference are generally inappropriate and unnecessary.

Letters soliciting such external evaluations, sent from the School, should contain the following: 1) explanation of

the proposed action (essential with Step VI and Above Scale); 2) request for analytical review of the candidate’s

performance under the applicable criteria and comparison with other scholars in the field at similar rank; and 3)

the following confidentiality statement:

Although the contents of your letter may be passed on to the candidate at prescribed stages of the review process, your identity will be held in confidence. The material made available will lack the letterhead, the signature block, and material below the latter. Therefore, material that would identify you, particularly your relationship to the candidate, should be placed below the signature block. In any legal proceeding or other situation in which the source of confidential information is sought, the University does its utmost to protect the identity of such sources.




PAGE 40 OF 137

Samples of all solicitation letters sent should be included in the case materials forwarded to APO. Sample Solicitation Letters.

The selection of extramural referees for candidates above the Assistant Professor level requires considerable

care. Initiators should keep in mind that letters from former mentors, collaborators, or other persons with

whom the candidate has had close associations tend to carry less weight than those from less closely-tied

persons. Reviewers should not be individuals who are known family members or who are business or

professional partners. Contact between the Unit Chair and individuals from whom letters are being solicited is

permissible in order to encourage response, but care must be taken not to bias or influence the judgment of the

referee.

Extramural reviewers who have provided confidential letters of evaluation should not be identified in the case

materials except by means of a coded list, included in the Case Review File, which indicates the names and

qualifications of all those from whom letters were solicited. It is important to also list potential letter writers

who were asked to supply an evaluation but did not respond. When a particular letter is evaluated in the Case

Analysis or any other case materials, the letter writer should only be identified by the code assigned on the list

(e.g., “Reviewer A”). Sample Lists of Reviewers may be found here and here.

F. UNSOLICITED LETTERS

Unsolicited letters of evaluation that are added to the file by the candidate are not considered confidential and

should be classified as “supplemental material.” Unsolicited letters not submitted by the candidate shall not be

part of the case discussion nor placed in the appointment case file. In rare instances where unsolicited letters

may be viewed as relevant to the case, they shall be reviewed by the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel on a

case-by-case basis.

G. REQUESTS TO EXCLUDE REVIEWERS

The UC Merced Procedural Safeguard Statement allows candidates for review to request the exclusion of

certain persons who might not provide objective evaluations. According to APM 220-80-c, “any such statement

provided by the candidate shall be included in the personnel review file.” Due to UC Merced’s small faculty base

and unique campus climate, however, the following directives are to be followed on this campus with regards to

this process:

In the vast majority of cases, the Unit honors the request to exclude a certain number of potential letter writers

or reviewers. In rare circumstances, when the Unit is not able to honor this request, the list will be forwarded to

CAP. For example, a faculty member may be in a field of research represented by a small nationwide

community, and the Unit may have no option but to request an evaluation from a person on the list. The list

provided by the faculty member would become part of the review file and would go to CAP for information.

A request to exclude an internal faculty member will be sent to the next highest level of review. For example, if

the faculty member lists his or her Unit Chair as a person who may not provide an objective evaluation, then the

request is shared with the school Dean or EVC. The list would not become part of the review file or go to CAP

but, depending on the circumstances, the EVC may decide to discuss the list with the CAP Chair.

H. CASE ANALYSIS

The Case Analysis is prepared by the AP Review Committee, whose members should consult the “Instructions to the Review Committee” (APM 210) for the appropriate series. For “normal” merit cases that use the Short

Form, the AP Review Committee may when necessary consist of only one member, though this is not preferable.

For all other actions (merits which do not use the Short Form, accelerations, MCA cases and promotions), AP

Review Committees should consist of more than one member. If a Unit has only one eligible voter for a

particular case, then the Committee can be expanded with members from other Bylaw 55 Units at UC Merced or

from other UC campuses.

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Adv_Solicitation_Letters_(Exhibits_F-J)_2.29.08.doc

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Adv_Solicitation_Letters_(Exhibits_F-J)_2.29.08.doc

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Adv%20Sample%20-%20List%20of%20Candidate%20Suggested%20Reviewers%206.21.07.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Adv%20Sample%20-%20List%20of%20School%20Suggested%20Reviewers%206.21.07.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/AP43_Procedural_Safeguard_Statement.pdf





PAGE 41 OF 137

The Case Analysis should 1) set out and explain the recommendation of the Review Committee for action on a

personnel case, and 2) support the recommendation by evaluating analytically, not merely describing, the

candidate’s performance in each of the areas of responsibility: teaching; research and creative activity;

professional competence and activity; and University and public service. The Case Analysis should be objective,

professional, balanced, and concise, avoiding the use of rhetorical statements. The assessment put forth in the

Case Analysis should be supported by evidence from the extramural letters, if any, as well as from all of the

materials submitted by the candidate, although excessive quotation is to be avoided.


PAGE 42 OF 137

The candidate’s scholarly and/or creative activities should be critically evaluated. The evaluation should provide

a careful assessment of the craftsmanship, originality, significance and impact of the candidate’s work. The

Analysis should not merely state that the work is significant or has had impact; it should indicate what is

significant about the work and the nature and extent of the impact. Writers should also indicate the relative

stature of the candidate in his or her field. APM 210-1-d-2 provides specific guidance on discussing and

evaluating creative works in particular.

If there is collaborative research, the Case Analysis should describe the relative contributions of the person

under review. In addition, the placement of publications should be addressed. The quality of journals or presses

in which work appears can be an important measure of the impact and quality of a candidate’s work. In cases in

which the placement is unusual, or may seem so to reviewers outside the discipline, the Case Analysis should

discuss the implications of this. For those works that appear in conference proceedings, information about the

publication is needed as there is great variation within and amongst the disciplines. The information may

include, as appropriate, the conference’s acceptance and publication rates, whether the paper was accepted on

the basis of title or abstract only, and the archival status of the conference proceedings.

In assessing the types of contracts, grants or fellowships awarded to the candidate, the Case Analysis should

address the importance and the expectations of support for the particular discipline.

Any Case Analysis proposing Professor, Step VI or above must include a discussion of the candidate’s

professional impact and stature, including national and/or international honors received, election to

distinguished societies, and other evidence of the candidate’s outstanding leadership in the profession.

Proposals for accelerated actions must likewise explicitly address the grounds for the acceleration.

I. TRANSMITTAL LETTER

The Case Analysis and supporting materials are made available to the appropriate Unit’s faculty for a length of

time specified in each Bylaw 55 Unit’s voting procedures (typically five days). At the conclusion of this review

period, the Unit Chair (or designee) presents the Case Analysis to the faculty and allows for a full discussion. This

discussion should focus only on the merits of the case materials provided. The discussion culminates in a vote of

all eligible voting members, according to the Unit’s bylaws and voting procedures.

The vote and the faculty discussion are recorded in the Transmittal Letter. The Transmittal Letter is a critical

component of the Case File and should include any pertinent arguments regarding the strengths and

weaknesses of the case, as well as a recommendation for the step and effective date of the proposed action.

Dissenting Bylaw Unit members have the right to have a minority report included with the Transmittal Memo;

however, a minority report should not be submitted unless, after good-faith efforts by all parties, the minority

believes that its views are not accurately represented in the Transmittal Memo.

Academic Units should develop policies that encourage the maximum number of faculty members to participate

in the evaluation of candidates (See MAPP 1005 for policy on physical presence for voting). Participation in

shared governance is a primary expectation of University of California faculty members, and excessive

abstentions or a small number of votes relative to the total number of faculty eligible to vote are likely to raise

concerns in other reviewers evaluating the file. In cases of abstentions or recusals, the Transmittal Letter should

provide a reason for these actions whenever possible.

J. DEAN’S RECOMMENDATION LETTER

After the faculty vote, the Dean assesses the Transmittal Letter, Case Analysis and other evidence provided in

the Case File to ensure that the Unit’s review is fair and rigorous in maintaining University standards. The Dean’s

Letter should be an independent assessment of the case. In the Letter, the Dean provides his or her

recommendation regarding the proposed action and supplies additional analysis as needed.



PAGE 43 OF 137

K. SALARY JUSTIFICATION

In a separate memo, the Dean provides a recommendation as to the salary associated with the proposed

appointment or advancement, including any off-scale increment, based on the University of California Academic Salary Scales. This salary should be justified in terms of prevailing norms within the Unit, School,

University and discipline. Proof of any competing offers should be provided with the case.

L. HIGHER LEVELS OF REVIEW

Upon completion of the Case File, it is forwarded to the Academic Personnel Office where it is reviewed for

completeness, accuracy, and compliance with policy. APO then routes the File to the Committee on Academic

Personnel (CAP) via the Academic Senate Office. After careful and rigorous review, CAP prepares a

recommendation regarding the proposed action, which is then forwarded to the VPAP and Provost/EVC. Should

the Provost/EVC disagree with CAP’s recommendation, he or she will consult with CAP before issuing a final

decision. The Provost/EVC has final authority on all merit, promotion and appraisal actions except for non-

reappointment of an Assistant Professor (see section A. Non-Reappointment below) and advancement to Above

Scale salary beyond the Regental compensation threshold (see APM 220-85.d).

UNFAVORABLE OUTCOMES

A. NON-REAPPOINTMENT

A proposal for non-reappointment of an Assistant Professor may originate with the Unit Chair as a result of Unit

review during consideration of reappointment or promotion to tenure (APM 220-84). Should the Unit vote for

non-reappointment:

1. The candidate will be apprised of the Unit’s recommendation by the Unit Chair during the second Procedural Safeguard meeting.

2. The candidate will have five business days to notify the Unit Chair of his or her intention to appeal the

decision, and an additional five business days to submit the written appeal to the Unit.

Should the recommendation for non-reappointment be issued by the Dean after a positive or negative

recommendation by the Unit:

1. The Dean shall notify the Unit Chair and the candidate and provide redacted copies of all confidential

materials, if any, added to the candidate’s personnel file after the Unit’s recommendation.

2. After receipt of the notice of a negative recommendation from the Dean, the candidate will have five business

days to notify the Unit of his or her intention to appeal the decision, and an additional five business days to

submit the written appeal to the Dean’s Office.

Should the recommendation for non-reappointment be issued by CAP after a positive or negative

recommendation from the School and the preliminary assessment by the Provost/EVC is for non-reappointment:

1. The Dean shall be notified of the CAP recommendation and preliminary assessment by the Vice Provost for

Academic Personnel.

2. The Unit Chair and the candidate will be notified in writing by the Provost/EVC of the CAP recommendation

and preliminary assessment and redacted copies of all confidential materials, if any, added to the candidate’s

personnel file after the School’s recommendation will be provided.

3. After receipt of the notice of a negative CAP recommendation and preliminary assessment, the candidate will

have five business days to notify the Provost/EVC or Unit Chair of his or her intention to appeal the decision,

and an additional ten business days to submit the written appeal to the Provost/EVC.

In cases in which non-reappointment is considered, the appeal, if any, shall be considered by CAP. An ad hoc committee shall be appointed if the Provost/EVC or CAP requests it.








PAGE 44 OF 137

The Chancellor is responsible for a decision not to reappoint an Assistant Professor. This authority may not be

redelegated.

B. APPEAL OF MERIT DECISION

If a candidate should wish to appeal the final decision in a merit review, she or he will have ten calendar days

after notification of the decision to submit the written appeal to the Unit Chair with a copy to the Dean. The

appeal shall consist of the candidate’s written statement and any relevant additional materials. The appeal shall

follow the normal process of merit review, with a vote from the Unit, a recommendation from the Dean, a

recommendation CAP, and a final decision from the Provost/EVC.

C. NEGATIVE MERIT REVIEW

Should a merit review have an unfavorable outcome, the next review will consider all materials from the review

periods since the most recent successful advancement review. The Case Analysis should address the most recent

CAP recommendation as well as the record from the latest review period.

After a negative merit review, a new letter of eligibility will not be issued by APO until the normal period of

service has passed for another merit review. Should the faculty member choose to put forward a case for

advancement before the normal period has elapsed, this will not in itself be considered an acceleration.

D. DENIAL OF TENURE

Should promotion to Associate Professor with tenure be denied in an Assistant Professor’s sixth or seventh year,

this decision is final and not further tenure reviews will be allowed. Those who do not achieve tenure are given

a final year notice, during which they may pursue an appeal of the decision. The appeal process is the same as

that detailed in A. Non-Reappointment above.

APPENDIX 2014-A: MID-CAREER APPRAISALS The Mid-Career Appraisal (APM 220-83), or “MCA,” is a formal evaluation, which is conducted in order to arrive

at a preliminary assessment of an Assistant Professor’s prospect for eventual promotion to Associate Professor

with tenure. Normally occurring in the fourth year of service to the University under the Eight-Year Rule, the

purpose of the MCA is to provide the Assistant Professor with a careful, considered analytical evaluation of his

or her performance to date in the areas of teaching, research and creative work, professional competence and

activity, and University and public service, and to make a candid prediction concerning the probability or

improbability of a favorable promotion decision based upon the evidence.

The list of case materials for the MCA is analogous to that provided for other types of personnel actions,

although the MCA is a substantially different type of assessment from that done for the normal merit review and

this should be reflected in the content of the documents prepared. All scholarly, teaching and service evidence

pertains to the MCA and all relevant materials may be included, regardless of status. Confusion on the part of

reviewers may result, however, when materials for a merit review and an MCA are submitted together, as is

typically the case since these reviews normally occur simultaneously. In the case of a merit review, only work

published or in press is counted. Maintaining a distinction between the MCA and merit reviews will allow

Units/Deans/CAP to properly consider the full range of ongoing research activities as part of the mid-career

assessment, and to make recommendations on merit increases based on review of in-press and published

papers. Outside letters may be obtained for the MCA but are not required if members of the Unit have sufficient

expertise to make the assessment.

The case for the MCA, therefore, should examine the complete record-to-date (including work in progress), and

it should carefully and frankly assess the prospects for the individual to achieve promotion based on

continuation of the current trajectory. The appraisal should note specific areas of weakness, if any, and should

recommend actions to be taken by the individual and/or the Unit and Chair.



of 137

The MCA should clearly designate an outcome of “Good,” “Fair” or “Poor.” These categories are broadly defined

as follows:


PAGE 46 OF 137

• Good: promotion is likely, contingent on maintaining the current trajectory of excellence and on

appropriate external evaluation

• Fair: promotion is likely, if identified weaknesses, deficiencies, or imbalances in the record are

corrected

• Poor: substantial deficiencies are present; promotion unlikely


PAGE 47 OF 137

Because the MCA is directed primarily toward the candidate, it is in the best interest of the candidate and the

Unit that the appraisal be careful, cautious and candid, addressing problems where they exist while there is still

time for adjustment and improvement. It is important that the faculty member is made throughly aware, in a

formal way, of her or his situation with regard to eventual promotion.

The MCA file should be forwarded to the Academic Personnel Office through the appropriate Dean’s Office. The

Committee on Academic Personnel will review the file and forward its recommendation to the Provost/EVC for

final approval.

APPENDIX 2014-B: CAREER EQUITY REVIEWS Career Equity Reviews (CERs) permit tenured faculty members to request a special review to determine whether

they are correctly calibrated at rank and step. They are intended to supplement regular academic reviews, and

they neither replace nor affect existing procedures for regular reviews.

A. OBJECTIVE

On rare occasions, a Senate faculty member may be at a rank and step seriously inconsistent with his or her

attainments. For example, an appointment may have been made at a rank or step lower than suggested based

on merit, and/or accomplishments that would warrant accelerated advancement may not have been identified.

The CER is designed to examine those cases in which normal personnel actions, from the initial hiring onward,

may have resulted in an inappropriate rank and/or step, and, when warranted, to allow placement of faculty

members at the appropriate rank and step consistent with prevailing UCM standards.

A CER is not a substitute for a normal merit, promotion, or acceleration review. It functions as a supplemental

process to correct a substantial inequity, typically a product of multiple past actions, not as a means of appeal

for, or expression of disagreement with, a single personnel decision.

Because the purpose of a CER is to assess rank and step, recommendation of a bonus off-scale salary award in

lieu of recalibration is inappropriate.

B. ELIGIBILITY FOR AND INITIATION OF REVIEW

A Senate faculty member who has held an eligible title (e.g., an academic employee in the Professor, In

Residence, or Lecturer SOE series, excluding those at the LPSOE, Assistant, or Above Scale levels) for at least four

years may initiate a CER at the time of his/her regular, on-cycle review by submitting a written request to the

appropriate Unit Chair or Dean. If the request is submitted to a Unit Chair, a copy should also be submitted to

the Dean. The decision to initiate a CER rests with the candidate.

C. CONTENT AND CRITERIA

A request for CER must contain justification for recalibration. Possible justification for a CER may include, but is

not limited to, the following assessments: 1) the cumulative record warrants higher placement on the academic

ladder even though no one review period did; 2) the rank/step was inappropriately low at the time of initial

hiring; 3) particular work and contributions have been overlooked or undervalued by the Unit and/or other

reviewing bodies.

The candidate must identify the specific area(s) of the record that he or she believes were not previously

evaluated properly, or the area(s) of the record that indicate that he or she was not hired at a rank and step

commensurate with his or her accomplishments. This process will be supported by an “expanded file” in which

the candidate’s entire record, up to and including the last review, may be considered. The candidate may submit

selected publications from earlier review periods that he or she considers relevant to the CER request.

The Unit Chair will develop an academic review file that will address the candidate’s entire academic record. The

file will include the request for a CER. If the CER request involves advancement to or through a “barrier” step

(promotion to Full Professor or advancement to Professor, Step VI, or to Professor, Above Scale), the Unit must

of 137

seek external letters addressing the barrier step advancement for inclusion in the file. [Sample Solicitation Letter]


PAGE 49 OF 137

D. TIMING OF THE CAREER EQUITY REVIEW

The CER review shall be separate from a normal review, but should address the candidate’s overall record using

the University’s established criteria for the rank and step requested.

E. FILE REVIEWERS

The appropriate Dean and CAP will consider all CERs. There are two ways in which consideration of a CER may

proceed:

• If the candidate submits the request for a CER to a Unit Chair, following Unit review/analysis and vote,

the Chair (or designee) will write the Unit Transmittal Memo regarding the CER request. It will

subsequently be forwarded to the Provost/EVC via the Academic Personnel Office, which will refer the

file to CAP for its recommendation.

• If the candidate submits the request for a CER to the Dean, the Dean may recommend someone other

than the Unit Chair to interact with the Unit Reviewers and write the Case Analysis. The Provost/EVC

must approve the Dean’s selection. Further review of the file will then proceed as described above. (In

rare cases, if it is believed that there is insufficient expertise at any level of review, the Provost/EVC may

recommend to CAP that an ad hoc committee be formed to advise CAP.)

F. FREQUENCY

A CER may be requested once at the Associate Professor level, once at the Full Professor level prior to

advancement to Professor, Step VI, and once after advancement to Professor, Step VI, up to Above Scale, but no

more than once every six years.

G. FINAL DETERMINATION

If the CER decision leads to an adjustment of rank and/or step, the candidate’s salary at the new rank and/or

step will include the same off-scale increment as the salary before the review. Any decision for an adjustment to

rank and/or step will be effective the following July 1. Another possible outcome is the confirmation that the

candidate has been appropriately placed at rank and step. This outcome will in no way affect current or future

actions proposed during the regular academic personnel process. Retroactive action to the original action will

not be approved. All CER actions become part of the academic personnel file.

Should the candidate wish to appeal the final determination, he or she will have five business days to notify the

Provost/EVC and Unit Chair of his or her intention to appeal the decision, and an additional ten business days to

submit the written appeal to the Unit. After consideration and vote by the Unit, the appeal will be considered by

the Dean and then routed through APO to CAP. An ad hoc committee shall be appointed if the Provost/EVC or

CAP requests it. The Provost/EVC shall make the final determination on the appeal.

APPENDIX 2014-C: SHORT FORM FOR NORMAL MERIT REVIEWS Normal merit increases within Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor I-V ranks, although less

critical than promotions, are not automatic and do require demonstrated merit.

For many merit reviews where the record seems clear and there is expected to be essentially unanimous

agreement in the Unit regarding the proposed action, UC Merced has adopted the “Short Form for Normal Merit Review” to simplify the preparation of the Case File. It should be noted that a Case File that reveals issues




PAGE 50 OF 137

of concern or potential controversy regarding the proposed action will not be indicative of a “normal merit,” and

thus is ineligible for use of the Short Form. The Short Form should likewise not be used for accelerated actions.

Use of the Short form is not mandatory and is subject to the discretion of the AP Chair.

The Short Form may be used for the following normal merit reviews:

Assistant Professor: First and second merit reviews (does not include MCA)

Associate Professor: Every other merit review within rank, exclusive of promotion

Full Professor: Every other merit review within rank, exclusive of barrier steps or promotion

Above Scale: Every other merit review


PAGE 51 OF 137

2015: SABBATICAL AND OTHER LEAVES

A. SABBATICAL LEAVE Please refer to APM 740 for comprehensive information about sabbatical leaves, including special appendices

for calculating credits.

PURPOSE

A sabbatical leave is a privilege accorded to qualified faculty members to enable them to engage in intensive

programs of research and/or study, and thus to become more effective teachers and scholars and enhance their

service to the University (Standing Orders of the Regents 103.4).

TYPES OF SABBATICAL

There are two types of sabbatical leave:

• Regular Sabbatical is leave from all regular University duties to enable the individual to devote her- or

himself full-time to research and/or study.

• Sabbatical in Residence requires the individual to teach in addition to engaging in a program of research

and/or study at UC Merced or another University of California campus. The individual is expected to

teach a regularly scheduled class that meets at least three hours per week. In exceptional cases

significant University service may be substituted for all or part of the instructional requirement. Service

must be at the campus or University-wide level and must require a time commitment equivalent to

teaching a regularly scheduled class. Such exceptions are granted by the Provost/EVC.

ELIGIBILITY & ACCRUAL

Appointees in the following titles are eligible for sabbatical leaves, providing they have accumulated enough

credits:

• Assistant Professor

• Associate Professor

• Professor

Credit toward eligibility to apply for sabbatical leave is earned through each semester of half-time or more

service in a ladder-rank faculty title at the University. Credit is earned during service as an Acting or Visiting

ladder-rank faculty member if such service is followed immediately by appointment to a regular ladder-rank

title.

Note: Refer to APM 740-11 for information regarding qualifying academic administrative and Senior Management positions. See also Senior Management Personnel Policy II-50.

An individual in an eligible title accrues one sabbatical credit for each full semester of service at 50% time or

more. Service must be continuous, with no break in University employment. The maximum number of credits

that may be accrued is equal to the number of credits required for a maximum sabbatical leave (one year at full

salary), plus one year of credit; e.g., twenty credits (APM 740-16.a). Once the maximum accrual is reached, the

balance will be capped until some credits are used for a leave. Faculty members may contact personnel in the

Dean’s Office or Academic Personnel Office with questions regarding sabbatical credit accrual.

Sabbatical credits are not accrued during periods of:


http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/bylaws/so1034.html


http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/personnel_policies/ii50.html


of 137

• Sabbatical leave

• Leave without pay


PAGE 53 OF 137

• Leave with pay for one semester or more

• Appointment to a university-sponsored research program at more than 50% time

• Summer research or Summer Session teaching

RESTRICTIONS

Sabbatical leaves will be granted only when they will not disrupt the teaching program or operation of the

University. A faculty member should not commence a sabbatical leave until the Dean and the Provost/EVC have

granted formal approval.

Immediately following a sabbatical leave, the faculty member must return to active service at UC Merced for a

period at least equal to the period of the leave. Failure to return from sabbatical leave will create an obligation

on the part of the individual to refund to the University the entire salary received during the leave. In case of a

return to regular University employment for a period less than that of the sabbatical leave, the refund

requirement will be reduced in proportion to the length of time served.

A sabbatical leave for an academic-year appointee shall be timed so that it starts and ends on dates established

in the academic calendar for the beginnings and endings of semesters.

A sabbatical leave shall not be approved for an appointee who has been issued a notice of non-renewal or

termination of appointment. For individuals who have had two or more reviews resulting in non-advancement, a

sabbatical leave should only be granted if the leave is part of the individual’s plan for re-engaging in research or

creative activity.

Sabbatical leave shall not be used as a means of augmenting personal income. Except as provided in APM 740-18 and APM 025, an individual shall not accept gainful employment during a sabbatical leave. This restriction

does not apply to acceptance of a fellowship, personal grant, or government-sponsored exchange lectureship

for the period of the leave, if such acceptance promotes the accomplishment of the purpose of the leave and is

approved in advance by the Dean and the Provost/EVC; or to acceptance of nominal honoraria in connection

with lectures delivered as part of the sabbatical leave project.

REQUESTING SABBATICAL LEAVE

Application for sabbatical leave requires submission of a completed Leave of Absence Request Form (UCM-AP 50) and a project statement providing information outlined in APM 740-94. These documents must be reviewed

and approved by the Dean, and then forwarded to the Academic Personnel Office for review and submission to

the Provost/EVC for final approval.

SABBATICAL LEAVE REPORT

Within ninety calendar days of returning from leave, the faculty member will submit to the Dean a concise

report of the results of the leave, including an account of progress made and plans for the completion of

research and publication of the results. Detailed information regarding the required elements of the report can

be found in APM 740-97. The report will become a part of the supporting documentation included in the next

academic personnel review file; the review file will not be processed unless the report is included.




http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/AP50_Leave_of_Absence_Request_Form_6_23_06.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/AP50_Leave_of_Absence_Request_Form_6_23_06.pdf




PAGE 54 OF 137

2016: DISCIPLINE

GENERAL GUIDELINES The following serves to implement the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline at UC Merced. While the Faculty Code of Conduct applies to all faculty members, both Senate and

non-Senate, these procedures apply exclusively to members of the Academic Senate (as identified in the

Standing Order of the Regents 105.1). No disciplinary sanction for professional misconduct of a member of the

Merced Division of the Academic Senate shall be imposed except pursuant to the procedures specified herein

and consistent with Academic Senate Bylaw 336. No faculty member’s right to a hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure under Academic Senate Bylaws 335, 336, and 337, or Standing Orders of the Regents

103.9 and 103.10, shall be abridged in any way by these procedures.

With respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Faculty Code deals only with professional conduct or

misconduct. Faculty members, however, in common with all other members of the University community, are

subject to the general rules and regulations of the University, such as those pertaining to parking, library

privileges, health and safety, and use of University facilities. Faculty members are subject to appropriate

sanctions for failure to comply with such rules and regulations. Senate faculty members holding administrative

appointments may be subject to disciplinary action under the Faculty Code for professional misconduct that falls

within the types of unacceptable conduct set forth in the Faculty Code. In addition, the Chancellor and Provost

and Executive Vice Chancellor may take administrative actions (e.g., removal from the administrative position),

which need not adhere to the disciplinary procedures outlined herein.

The authority to discipline faculty members derives from The Regents. The Regents have made the Chancellor of

each campus responsible for administering discipline on that campus, and there is to be no re-delegation of the

Chancellor’s authority to impose disciplinary sanctions; however, in any case of discipline of a Senate faculty

member, the Chancellor will normally delegate to the Provost/EVC the authority to initiate disciplinary action

(i.e., to initiate and monitor the investigation of the complaint and the process to determine probable cause). In

the event that the Provost/EVC recuses him- or herself from a disciplinary case at any stage, the Chancellor may

delegate his or her authority to a person or persons whom the Chancellor judges to be appropriate. The

Chancellor will discuss the selection of this person or persons with the Chair of the Academic Senate.

University procedures afford safeguards against arbitrary or unjust disciplinary actions, including provisions for

hearings and appeal. Senate faculty members may accept the disciplinary sanctions as proposed by the

Chancellor, or they may request a hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Merced Division of the Academic Senate. The role of this Committee is to take under consideration complaints against

or by members of the Academic Senate. The Committee holds hearings and advises the administration. The

Chancellor will not appoint any current member of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure as an investigator.

Discipline is defined to include the following actions: written censure; reduction in salary; demotion; suspension;

denial or curtailment of emeritus status; and dismissal from the employ of the University (APM 16 Section II). More than one disciplinary sanction may be imposed for a single act of misconduct; e.g., a demotion and a

suspension. Any disciplinary action must begin within three years of the time when the Chancellor knew or

should have known about the alleged violation of the Faculty Code.

When a complaint has been made, all faculty members, campus officers and agencies shall treat the identities of

the complainant and the faculty member against whom the complaint is made (herein referred to as

“respondent”) as a matter of utmost confidentiality.






http://senate.ucmerced.edu/committees/privilege-and-tenure-pt











PAGE 55 OF 137

INITIATING THE COMPLAINT PROCESS A complaint may be brought under these procedures by any student, staff member, or faculty member of the

University of California. Systemwide policy statements clearly indicate that the investigation of faculty

misconduct should be an administrative function, while holding hearings on such charges is an Academic Senate

function to be carried out by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

A. INFORMAL COMPLAINT

In some circumstances, informal means of resolution may be appropriate as a first resort. Such efforts may

include discussion with the faculty member as well as the pursuit of all available administrative actions. Informal

complaints may be heard by the relevant Dean; Associate or Assistant Dean; Human Resources; Academic

Personnel Office; or the complainant’s immediate supervisor. The informal complaint may also be referred to

the Provost/EVC to assist in the informal resolution of the complaint.

Any recipient of an informal complaint may in all cases listen to the complaint without informing the accused

faculty member of it. If the recipient of the complaint, or any campus officer or agency, begins to investigate the

merits of the complaint, beyond what can be established by talking to the complainant, the accused faculty

member shall at that stage have a right to notification. Should the complaint be resolved informally or not

pursued further, all documents, notes, or other evidence shall be destroyed or returned to the complainant.

If the recipient of the informal complaint deems it to be appropriate, and if procedures for informal resolution

are either unsuccessful, unacceptable to the complainant, or deemed inappropriate by the campus officer or

agency involved, then that officer or agency shall refer the complainant to the Provost/EVC. The Provost/EVC

will keep the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure apprised of all such actions. At this stage of the

process, the Provost/EVC is not required to notify the faculty member against whom the complaint has been

made.

B. FORMAL COMPLAINT

If the complainant wishes to file a formal complaint, the following procedures must be followed.

Allegations of violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct against a Senate faculty member shall be addressed to

the Provost/EVC and shall normally be submitted in the form of a written, signed letter from the complainant.

The complainant must include a written explanation of any attempts made to resolve the matter prior to the

filing of the formal complaint. The complainant should, whenever possible, identify the section(s) of the Faculty

Code of Conduct alleged to have been violated. It is important that the complainant submit supporting

documentation sufficient to substantiate the allegations of misconduct.

The Provost/EVC shall review the complaint to ensure that it conforms to these requirements, and to a

reasonable standard of conciseness and order. The Provost/EVC may also consult with the appropriate School

Dean as necessary. The Provost/EVC may, at his or her discretion, reject any complaint that does not meet these

requirements. In this event, the complaint will be returned to the complainant who shall have the opportunity

to correct the stated deficiencies, and then return the complaint for consideration.

The Provost/EVC will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to

believe that a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct may have occurred. The Provost/EVC may appoint

additional internal or external faculty members or administrators to conduct the informal, preliminary inquiry.

The respondent will be notified by the Provost/EVC that a formal complaint has been filed against him or her,

and he or she will receive a copy of the complaint with all supporting documentation.

If there is apparent merit to the complaint, the Provost/EVC shall designate an Academic Senate faculty member

(or a committee of up to four faculty members) as an Investigative Officer (or Investigative Committee) to

investigate and provide a determination as to whether there is probable cause that a violation has occurred

(APM 15, Part III.A.4).




PAGE 56 OF 137

The Investigative Officer will advise the Provost/EVC:

• Whether any of the allegations in the formal complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of of the

Faculty Code of Conduct;

• If so, whether there is probable cause to warrant the initiation of disciplinary action by the

administration; and

• If there has been a finding of probable cause, what specific disciplinary sanction(s) are recommended by

the Investigative Officer.

The Investigative Officer may discuss procedural and interpretive questions with the Provost/EVC at any stage of

the investigation and may seek legal interpretation. In addition, the Investigative Officer has the Provost/EVC’s

authority to seek further information (normally in writing, but also in person as deemed appropriate) from

individuals who may have relevant information. The Investigative Officer should advise individuals who have

been consulted that the University will do all in its power to assure that information will be kept confidential to

the extent allowable by law and University policy. Additionally, all parties involved will be instructed of the strict

confidentiality of the review.

Following its investigation of the formal complaint, the Investigative Officer shall write a final report to the

Provost/EVC. The report shall include the ‘Officer’s assessment of the evidence, a recommendation to dismiss

the complaint or to initiate disciplinary action, and a recommendation of the type of disciplinary sanction(s)

proposed, if any. It is expected that the Investigative Officer will conclude his or her work within 90 calendar

days from receipt of the complaint, unless an extension is granted by the Provost/EVC.

INITIATING THE DISCIPLINE PROCESS

A. INFORMAL RESOLUTION

As an alternative to formal disciplinary procedures, the respondent and the administration may explore informal

resolutions at any point in the disciplinary process. Upon written agreement by both the Provost/EVC and the

respondent, the Provost/EVC may agree to waive the proposed disciplinary sanction(s) on the condition that the

respondent performs some specified action(s) designed to address the violation and/or to prevent future harm

or continued violation. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, monetary restitution, repayment of

misappropriated resources, compliance with a commitment not to repeat the misconduct, or other action to

remedy the harm caused by the respondent.

Respondents who are interested in pursuing an informal resolution may negotiate directly with the

administration or may request the involvement of the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

Respondents should contact the Provost/EVC and/or the Chair of Privilege and Tenure to discuss this option

further or to propose an informal resolution.

If an informal resolution is reached with the administration at any point in the disciplinary process (with or

without the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure), the Chancellor shall report to the entire

Committee on Privilege and Tenure for informational purposes, and without using the respondent’s name, a

statement of the charges and the negotiated resolution.

B. INVOLUNTARY LEAVE

The Provost/EVC may initiate involuntary leave with pay prior to the initiation of disciplinary action if it is

determined that there is a strong risk that the respondent’s continued assignment to regular duties or presence

on campus will cause immediate and serious harm to the campus community or impede the investigation of his

or her alleged wrongdoing, or in situations in which the respondent’s conduct represents a serious crime or

felony that is the subject of investigation by a law enforcement agency.


PAGE 57 OF 137

Such action does not represent the imposition of a disciplinary sanction; however, the respondent’s return to

University premises without written permission from the Provost/EVC may create independent grounds for

disciplinary action.

The Provost/EVC must mandate such investigatory leave in writing, including the reasons for and expected

duration of the leave, to the respondent and must initiate disciplinary procedures by bringing charges against

the respondent within ten working days after the imposition of involuntary leave.

C. INFORMING THE RESPONDENT OF THE INTENT TO DISCIPLINE

Upon receipt of the Investigative Officer’s report, the Provost/EVC will determine whether there is probable

cause for undertaking disciplinary action against the accused faculty member. If so, the findings of the

Investigative Officer will be transmitted to the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, together with a

written notice of intent to discipline from the Provost/EVC describing the reasons for undertaking the proposed

action and the type of sanction(s) that are recommended. The Chancellor may not impose a type of discipline

more severe than that set forth in this notice.

At this stage, the name of the respondent, the nature of the charges, and the proposed discipline shall be

confidential information, limited to the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure and not known to the

other members of the Committee.

The notice of intent to discipline, along with a copy of the report of the,Investigative Officer shall normally be

presented to the respondent in person or, if not feasible, the notice and report shall be sent to the respondent’s

campus address and last known home address using a proof of service form.

D. DISCIPLINARY HEARING

At the time the notice is personally delivered to the respondent, or within three working days if the notice is

mailed, the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall make known to the respondent his or her

Senatorial right to a hearing pursuant to Academic Senate Bylaw 336 before disciplinary sanctions can be

imposed. The Chair shall also provide information about the the nature of Privilege and Tenure hearings, as well

as information about the options available to the respondent. These options include accepting the proposed

discipline or negotiating an informal resolution directly with the administration.

The respondent shall have 21 calendar days from the date of receipt of the notice in which to file a written

response with the Provost/EVC indicating that he or she accepts the findings and proposed sanctions, or to

inform the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure that he or she waives the Senatorial right to a formal

hearing before the Committee. Absent any such written response, a hearing shall be conducted as specified by

Academic Senate Bylaw 336.

In connection with hearings before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure (or any properly constituted hearing

panel subcommittee), a respondent will be entitled to all procedural privileges and protections specified in the

Standing Orders of the Regents (103.9 and 103.10) and in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM 15 and APM 16). All investigations and hearings will be treated as confidential and open only to those persons directly

involved.

Every effort shall be made to conform to a reasonable time frame in the implementation of all procedures.

Consistent with Academic Senate Bylaw 336.B.3, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall consider the

matter within 21 calendar days after receipt of a response or after the deadline for receipt of a response if none

is received. Pursuant to APM 15 Section 3.B.7, a hearing should commence within 90 days of the date on which

the respondent was informed of the intention to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. A hearing shall not be

postponed because the respondent is unavailable or unwilling to cooperate.

The Chancellor has final authority to determine and execute appropriate sanctions, except in those cases of

dismissal or demotion in which final authority rests with the President or the Regents (APM 16 Section II). The

Chancellor will inform the accused faculty member in writing of his or her final decision. The complainant shall








http://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/apm/apm-015.pdf


of 137

be informed in writing by the Provost/EVC that the investigation has been concluded and that appropriate

action has been taken, but the details of any action shall not be shared with the complainant.


PAGE 59 OF 137

COMPLAINT FILE Upon final resolution of the formal complaint, the complaint file will be maintained only in the Academic

Personnel Office. The complaint file shall include the following:

• The original formal complaint and all accompanying documentation;

• The letter from the Provost/EVC forwarding the complaint to the Investigative Officer for its probable

cause investigation;

• The Investigative Officer’s final report;

• The Provost/EVC’s written notice of intent to initiate disciplinary action, if any;

• A copy of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure’s hearing report, if any;

• A copy of the Chancellor’s letter communicating his or her decision to the respondent; and

• A copy of the Provost/EVC’s communication to the complainant notifying him or her of the closing of the

investigation.

In the event that the allegations against the respondent are not sustained; all materials related to the claim shall

be destroyed after a period of three years. All other files shall be maintained for ten years after separation of

the respondent from UC Merced and then destroyed.


PAGE 60 OF 137

2017: GRIEVANCE PROCESS

See UC Senate Bylaw 335

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/bltoc.html

NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES MAPP 302X ADJUNCT PROFESSOR SERIES

PAGE 61 OF 137

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3021: General Guidelines

3022: Recruitment

3023: Appointment


3026: Discipline


NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES MAPP 302X ADJUNCT PROFESSOR SERIES

PAGE 62 OF 137

3021: GENERAL GUIDELINES In many ways the Adjunct Professor series parallels that of the Professor series. While the Adjunct title does not

confer Senate membership, this campus-affiliated faculty is expected to adhere to UC Merced’s rigorous

standards of scholarship, making significant contributions to its research and teaching endeavors. Academic

personnel policy and procedures for the Adjunct title generally mimic those for the Professor title. Distinctions

are described in this section but, when appropriate, a reader is referred to MAPP Chapter 2 (Professor Series).

A. RANKS & CRITERIA

Appointments in this series are made to individuals who are affiliated with UC Merced through their

participation in the campus’ research and teaching activities. Appointees may be predominantly engaged in

research or in teaching, as long as they make some contribution to both. If research ceases to be a part of the

appointee’s duties, the individual should be considered for transfer to an instruction-only title. Appointees are

also to engage in University and public service consistent with their assignments. Please refer to APM 210-1-d

for a description of the teaching, research, and service criteria.

Adjunct Professor appointment and advancement cases must clearly state the assigned duties and

responsibilities for review at all levels of the AP process (APM 280-4 and 280-10). An Adjunct faculty member

needs to be apprised at the time of appointment of the nature of the appointment, and relevant duties and

responsibilities.

It is expected that an appointment in the Adjunct Professor series be made at a certain percentage (full-time,or

part-time), whether for pay or not. The Case Analysis is then expected to analyze the Adjunct faculty member’s

performance relative to both the appointment percentage and the agreed-upon duties and responsibilities.

Titles for the Adjunct series are listed below. Ranks and steps in this series correspond with those in the

Professor series. An appointment or reappointment should be made at a level that is appropriate for the

candidate’s scholarly and creative productivity and achievement.

Adjunct Professor Titles

• Assistant Adjunct Professor

• Associate Adjunct Professor

• Adjunct Professor

B. FUNDING

Appointments made to the Adjunct series should be supported primarily by non-State funds, and no more than

one half of the Adjunct appointment may be supported by State funds (19900 – 19999).

Authority to grant exceptions to this policy belongs only to the Chancellor and cannot be redelegated. Requests

for exceptions must be written, addressed to the Chancellor, provide clear justification for the exception, and

adhere to the eight-year limitation as stated in APM 280-16-b (2). The requests originate with the relevant Unit




LADDER-RANK FACULTY AND OTHER ACADEMIC SENATE TITLES MAPP 302X ADJUNCT PROFESSOR SERIES

PAGE 63 OF 137

Chair or Dean and have the Dean’s approval via her or his signature. Once submitted to APO, the request will be

forwarded to the Chancellor for approval. All exceptions must be approved prior to commencing the

appointment process.

C. SALARY

Appointments may be made with or without salary. For appointments with salary, the academic salary scales for

the regular Professor series shall apply, subject to the terms of the compensation plan and adjusted to reflect

percentage time.

Appointments may be made at full-time or part-time. The assigned percentage time should accurately reflect

the expected workload carried with an appointment to this title. It should not be confused with salary rate. For

example, an appointee may make research and teaching contributions to UC Merced that are consistent with a

20 percent time appointment, even though the appointment was made without salary.

D. TERMS OF SERVICE

An appointment or a reappointment to an Adjunct title is made with a specified ending date. This is

communicated to the appointee in the Appointment Letter or the Reappointment Letter.

Maximum terms for appointments and reappointments are provided below; when appropriate, recommended

terms may be shorter. Reappointments may be made to the same rank and step, i.e., without a merit increase or

promotion. Effective beginning and ending dates of an appointment generally coincide with the University’s

fiscal calendar, which begins on July 1.

Level Max. Appt. Term Service Limit(s)

Assistant Adjunct Professor (50% time or less) 2 Years None

Assistant Adjunct Professor (51% time or more) 2 years 8 Years

(See Section E)

Associate Adjunct Professor, Steps I, II, and III 2 Years None

Associate Adjunct Professor, Steps IV and V 3 Years None

Adjunct Professor 3 Years None

E. NORMAL PERIOD AT STEP & LIMITATIONS OF SERVICE

In computing time for the Adjunct title, only those semesters at more than 50 percent time count. The normal

periods of service at each step in this series coincide with those of the Professor series as described in APM 220-18-b.

An eight-year limitation of service applies to appointees who hold the Assistant Adjunct Professor title, either in

that title alone or when combined with those titles listed in APM 133-0-c. Assistant Adjunct Professors normally

undergo a Mid-Career Appraisal.




PAGE 64 OF 137

3022: RECRUITMENT

A. RECRUITMENT DATA

Unless a competitive affirmative action search takes place, recruitment data do not pertain to the

appointment and are thus not included in the appointment case file. If a competitive affirmative action

search takes place, refer to MAPP 2012 for pertinent policies and procedures.


PAGE 65 OF 137

3023: APPOINTMENT Because Adjunct appointees are considered to be affiliated faculty of UC Merced, the same academic personnel

procedures and standards of excellence for the Professor series apply to the Adjunct series. For general

appointment processes and guidelines, please refer to MAPP 2013, taking into consideration the exceptions and

additions listed below.

A. CASE ANALYSIS

The Case Analysis should make a clear justification for the proposed appointment or reappointment. It should

address the recommended rank and step, providing solid evidence that supports the level of the appointment or

reappointment.

B. TRANSMITTAL LETTER & DEAN’S RECOMMENDATION LETTER

Both the Transmittal Letter and the Dean’s Recommendation Letter should articulate specific justification for

each appointment in order to gain the support of the Committee on Academic Personnel and the approval of

the Provost/EVC.

Towards that goal, the letters should address the following:

1. The quality of the candidate and her/his specific ability to contribute to the unit, the program, and/or

the campus;

2. The value added to the program/unit mission not currently afforded by the ladder-rank and other

faculty;

3. Whether the recommendation is without salary and the proposed percentage of time of the

appointment;

4. The appropriate funding source. Special and additional permission is required if there is a proposal to

use State funds (19900-19999);

5. The beginning and specific ending date of the appointment;

6. The specific assignment of duties and responsibilities. Evaluation and subsequent reviews of the

candidate shall be based upon the candidate’s specific assignment and be consistent with APM 280;

7. The specific appropriateness of the candidate’s abilities and background with respect to the assigned

duty and responsibilities.

C. APPOINTMENT LETTER

The Appointment or Reappointment Letter must indicate the ending date of the appointment and include the

following text:

“University policy requires that you be informed of the following: appointments to the title of <rank> Adjunct

Professor are self-terminating (no further notice of non-reappointment will be forthcoming) and do not create

an obligation on the part of the university to either extend or renew the appointment.”

D. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PATENT POLICY

All Adjunct faculty participating in research as employees or otherwise, with or without salary, shall execute a

University of California Patent Policy as a condition of receiving their adjunct faculty appointment.

Notwithstanding the above, an individual acknowledges that he or she is bound by the University of California

Patent Policy by accepting or continuing University employment or by using University resources, facilities, or

interacting with University faculty and staff. Failure to sign the Policy shall result in the appointment not being

granted.



PAGE 66 OF 137

3024: MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW

Section Under Construction: Please refer to MAPP 2014 for information on merit, promotion and appraisal review.


PAGE 67 OF 137

3026: DISCIPLINE This policy provides the standards and procedures for instituting corrective action or dismissal of non-Senate

academic appointees. Corrective action or dismissal may be instituted for good cause, including but not limited

to: misconduct, unsatisfactory work performance, or dereliction of academic duty. For non-Senate academic

appointees who are subject to peer review for performance evaluation, demotion and dismissal for

unsatisfactory work performance shall involve the regular peer review process. Such peer review shall be

advisory to the administrator authorized to institute the demotion and dismissal action.

RESPONSIBILITY Unit Chairs, supervisors and other appropriate administrative authorities have the responsibility to ensure that

each appointee has the appropriate training and mentoring opportunities in order to successfully carry out the

job duties and responsibilities of his or her position. It is expected that each aforementioned supervisor will

ensure that timely communications, documentation and performance review have occurred prior to initiating

corrective action and/or any recommendation for dismissal.

PRIOR TO INSTITUTING ACTION Prior to instituting corrective action and/or dismissal as described in the sections that follow, efforts to resolve

the problem should be attempted.

For performance-related issues, supervisors are responsible for counseling individuals as deficiencies in job

duties occur. If deficiencies continue, counseling memos should be issued to the appointee. The documentation,

in the form of a counseling memo should clearly identify the problem area(s), the expected standards, and refer

to any previous discussions the supervisor has had with the appointee. The supervisor should follow up with the

appointee at an appropriate interval, informing him or her whether the deficiency has been corrected or further

improvement is required.

Performance reviews should appropriately address any deficiencies that required documentation. If during the

course of the performance review it is determined that previously acknowledged deficiencies still exist or

performance continues to be unsatisfactory, corrective action should be instituted.

For actions that involve serious misconduct, such as those involving the health and safety of other University

employees, or that may involve the misuse of University property, it may be appropriate to initiate corrective

action and/or dismissal immediately.

TYPES OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND DISMISSAL Corrective actions include written warning with consequence, written censure, suspension without pay, or

demotion. Corrective action shall normally be taken in progressive steps, beginning with a written warning,

except when corrective action is the result of conduct which an appointee knows or reasonably should have

known was unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory conduct may include but is not limited to dishonesty, theft or

misappropriation of University property, fighting on the job, insubordination, acts endangering others, sexual

harassment or other serious misconduct.

Written warning is a formal communication that informs the appointee of a deficiency in performance or an

incident of misconduct. A written warning contains not only the specifics of the performance or an incident, but

also a method for correction and a clear statement of the probable consequence if the deficiency or misconduct

is not corrected.

Written censure is a formal reprimand that conveys institutional rebuke. It may be issued to an appointee for

performance or conduct the appointee knows or reasonably should have known was inappropriate or

unsatisfactory. Written censure informs the appointee of the serious nature of the event. A written notice of

intent must precede the issuance of a written censure.


PAGE 68 OF 137

Suspension is debarment without pay from the appointee’s responsibilities for a stated period of time. An

appointee may be suspended for performance or conduct the appointee knows or reasonably should have

known was inappropriate or unsatisfactory. A written notice of intent to suspend must precede the issuance of a

written notice of suspension.

Demotion is a temporary or indefinite reduction in rank, step, and/or salary. An appointee may be demoted for


unsatisfactory. A written notice of intent to demote must precede the issuance of a written notice of

suspension. For non-Senate academic appointees who are subject to peer review for performance evaluation, demotion for

unsatisfactory work performance shall involve the regular peer review process.

Dismissal is the termination of employment initiated by the University prior to the ending date of appointment.

An appointee may be dismissed for continued poor performance as a consequence of a previous written

warning. An appointee may also be dismissed without previous written warning or as a result of conduct the

appointee knows or reasonably should have known was unsatisfactory or inappropriate. In both cases, a written

notice of intent to dismiss must precede the issuance of a written notice of dismissal. For non-Senate academic

appointees who are subject to peer review for performance evaluation, dismissal for unsatisfactory work

performance shall involve the regular peer review process.

PROCEDURES Corrective action or dismissal as defined by this policy is subject to review and approval of the Vice Provost for

Academic Personnel.

A. INVESTIGATORY LEAVE

An appointee may be placed on an immediate investigatory leave with pay without prior written notice for the

purpose of reviewing or investigating charges of misconduct or dereliction of duty, which, in the judgment of the

supervisor, requires removal of the appointee from responsibilities and/or University premises. Such

investigatory leave must be confirmed in writing to the appointee normally within five working days after the

leave is effective. The notice shall include the reasons for and the expected duration of the leave.

B. WRITTEN WARNING

A written warning issued under this policy as a result of continued poor performance, a less than satisfactory

performance review, or due to inappropriate or unsatisfactory conduct must state the serious nature of the

performance or conduct and a probable consequence appropriate to the circumstance.

C. WRITTEN NOTICE OF INTENT

A written notice of intent shall be provided to the appointee prior to initiating a written censure, suspension

without pay, demotion, or dismissal. Notice of intent is not required for a written warning. The notice of intent

shall provide:

• the serious nature of the deficiency or conduct;

• the intended action, including any salary consequence of the action;

• proposed effective date;

• reason for the action and or basis of the charges, including copies of pertinent material upon which the

intended action was based;

• the appointee’s right to respond either orally or in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date

of issuance of the written notice of intent;

of 137

• the name of the person to whom the appointee should respond.


PAGE 70 OF 137

D. WRITTEN NOTICE OF ACTION

Following the review of an appointee’s oral or written response, if any, to the notice of intent, a written notice

of action shall be issued to the appointee. The notice of action shall be issued within thirty (30) calendar days of

the date of issuance of the written notice of intent. Such notice of action shall:

• notify the appointee of the corrective action or dismissal to be taken;

• notify the appointee of the effective date of the action;

• notify the appointee of the right to grieve the action under APM 140.

The notice of action may specify corrective action less severe than that described in the notice of intent, or it

may specify that no corrective action will be taken; however the notice of action may not include an action more

severe than that described in the notice of intent.

E. REPRESENTATION

An appointee may be self-represented or may be represented by another person at any stage of the corrective

action or dismissal process.

F. EXTENSION OF TIME

Prior to the expiration of any time limit, extensions may be granted for good cause by the Vice Provost for

Academic Personnel.

G. RECORDS

A copy of the written warning, written censure, suspension, demotion, dismissal, the written notice of intent,

and a copy of all supporting documents upon which the decision to take corrective action or dismissal was based

shall be placed in the appointee’s official personnel file. Such materials may be considered in connection with a

recommendation or decision in a personnel action involving the individual if the materials are made part of the

personnel review by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel. An appointee shall have the right to have

inserted into the personnel file any statement or response to these materials in accordance with APM 160-30.

H. NOTICE PROCEDURES

Any notice to the appointee pursuant to this procedure shall be deemed conclusive by delivery to the

appointee’s last known address.


http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-160.pdf



PAGE 71 OF 137

3027: GRIEVANCE PROCESS A non-Senate academic appointee is entitled to select only one grievance review mechanism (APM 150-40). For

a non-Senate academic appointee with a term appointment, if the hearing has not commenced by the ending of

the appointment, the dismissal becomes a non-reappointment effective at the end of the appointment. The

appointee has 30 days from the ending date of the appointment to grieve the non-reappointment (APM 137, APM 140). The grievance should be submitted in writing to the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel.




NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES MAPP 303X VISITING PROFESSOR SERIES

PAGE 72 OF 137

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3031: General guidelines

3032: Recruitment

3033: Appointment



3036: Discipline



PAGE 73 OF 137

3031: GENERAL GUIDELINES

A. RANK & CRITERIA

The Visiting prefix is used in conjunction with the Professor title to designate one who:

• Is appointed temporarily to perform the duties associated with the Professor title as stated in APM 220;

• Either has held, is on leave from, or is retired from an academic or research position at another

educational institution; or whose research, creative activities or professional achievement makes a

visiting appointment appropriate.

Ranks and steps in this series parallel those in the Professor series. A Visiting Professor who is on leave or retired

from another institution will normally be appointed at the same rank and step as the individual’s title at the

home educational institution. Because appointments in this series are temporary, reasonable flexibility may be

employed in the application of the first criterion above.

Appointment to this series does not confer membership in the Academic Senate.

B. SALARY

Tenure or security of employment is not granted in association with appointment to the visiting series.

Appointments may be made with or without salary. Salaries shall be determined according to the special

circumstances of the case, with due consideration given to the appointee’s regular salary or professional

income. In some cases, it may be appropriate to separate considerations of rank from those of salary.

Appointees’ travel expenses are not to be incorporated in the salary and reimbursement of such expenses

should be made in accordance with University policy.

Appointments may be made at full-time or part-time. The assigned percentage time should accurately reflect

the expected workload carried with an appointment to this title.

C. TERMS OF SERVICE

An appointment or a reappointment to the Visiting Professor series is made for a specified term not to exceed

one year. This is communicated to the appointee in the Appointment Letter or the Reappointment Letter. The

total period of consecutive service with a Visiting title shall not exceed two years, unless a longer period is

approved by the Provost/EVC. In the case of Visiting Assistant Professor Programs in Mathematics, the total

period of consecutive service shall not exceed three years, unless a longer period is approved by the Chancellor.

D. LIMITATIONS OF SERVICE

If an appointee is later considered for transfer to a corresponding appointment in the regular series, the

proposal for such transfer shall be treated as a new appointment subject to full customary review.

If an appointee is transferred to a corresponding appointment in the regular series, the following shall apply:

• Certain removal expenses may be allowed as provided in APM 560-14-d.

• Prior service in the Visiting Assistant Professor title will be credited under the “eight-year” rule (APM 133).

• Sabbatical leave credit will be accrued as described in APM 740-11-b.







PAGE 74 OF 137

3032: RECRUITMENT

A. RECRUITMENT DATA

Unless a competitive affirmative action search takes place, recruitment data do not pertain to the

appointment and are thus not included in the appointment case file. If a competitive affirmative action

search takes place, refer to MAPP 2012 for pertinent policies and procedures.


PAGE 75 OF 137

3033: APPOINTMENT

A. APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT

The same criteria and standards of excellence for the Professor series apply to the Visiting Professor series. For

general appointment processes and guidelines, please refer to MAPP 2013, taking into consideration the

exceptions and additions listed below.

1. DEAN’S RECOMMENDATION LETTER

The Dean’s Recommendation Letter should articulate specific justification for each appointment in order

to gain the approval of the Provost/EVC. Towards that goal, the letters should address the following:

• The quality of the candidate and her/his specific ability to contribute to the unit, the program,

and/or the campus;

• The value added to the program/unit mission not presently afforded by the ladder-rank and

other faculty;

• If the recommendation is without salary and the proposed percentage of time of the

appointment;

• The appropriate funding source;

• The beginning and specific ending date of the appointment;

• The specific assignment of duties and responsibilities, which must include teaching and

research. Subsequent evaluations of the candidate shall be based upon the candidate’s specific

assignment and be consistent with APM 230;

• The specific appropriateness of the candidate’s abilities and background with respect to the

assigned duty and responsibilities.

3. APPOINTMENT LETTER

The Appointment or Reappointment Letter must indicate the ending date of the appointment and

include the following text:

University policy requires that you be informed of the following: appointments to the title of Visiting <rank> Professor are self-terminating (no further notice of non-reappointment will be forthcoming) and do not create an

obligation on the part of the University to either extend or renew the appointment.



PAGE 76 OF 137

3034: MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW

A. MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW

Merit, promotion, and appraisal reviews are not applicable to the Visiting Professor series.


PAGE 77 OF 137

3035: SABBATICAL AND OTHER LEAVES Sabbatical leave and credit will be accrued as described in APM 740-11-b.



PAGE 78 OF 137



to misconduct, unsatisfactory work performance, or dereliction of academic duty. For non-Senate academic














to any previous discussions the supervisor has had with the appointee. The supervisor should follow-up with the


















is not corrected.






PAGE 79 OF 137








Suspension. For non-Senate academic appointees who are subject to peer review for performance evaluation, demotion for






notice of intent to dismiss must precede the issuance of a written notice of dismissal.

For non-Senate academic appointees who are subject to peer review for performance evaluation, dismissal for



Academic Personnel.







B. WRITTEN WARNING







shall provide:








of 137



PAGE 81 OF 137











E. REPRESENTATION





Academic Personnel.

G. RECORDS














PAGE 82 OF 137








NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES MAPP 305X PROJECT SERIES

PAGE 83 OF 137


3052: Recruitment

3053: Appointment


3056: Discipline



PAGE 84 OF 137

3051: GENERAL GUIDELINES Project series titles are given to those appointees who make significant and creative contributions to a research

or creative project in any academic discipline. Appointees may be ongoing members of a research team or may

be employed for a limited period of time to contribute high-level skills to a specific research or creative program.

They are not required to carry out independent research or develop an independent research reputation, nor

are they expected to demonstrate the capacity to do so. Ordinarily, appointees will carry out research or

creative programs with supervision by a member of the Professor or Professional Research Series. Nevertheless,

those who hold a Project title are expected to have a broader range of knowledge and competency and a higher

level of independence than appointees in the Specialist series, whose appointment and advancement depend on

the technical contributions that they make to the work of the research team.

Though an appointee in the Project series does not usually serve as a Principal Investigator, the Vice Chancellor

for Research has the authority to grant exceptions. Any request for and approval of an exception to this policy

must be in writing and must be made prior to any offer of employment.. Exceptions are generally required when

the candidate lacks the full requirements for a Professional Research title.

A. CRITERIA

Candidates for a title in this series must have earned a doctorate or its equivalent.

In judging a candidate for appointment or promotion to a position in this series, the two criteria outlined and

described below are used. An evaluation of the candidate’s achievement in both criteria is required, though

reasonable flexibility may be exercised in balancing heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area

against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another area. Project titles do not require appointees to

participate in University and public service, though doing so is encouraged.

Project Scientists do not have any teaching responsibilities. Project series appointees, however, may be involved

in the training and mentorship of undergraduates and graduate students. Appointees in this series who teach

must hold concurrently an appropriate instructional title, following campus review procedures for such

appointment.

Significant, original, and creative contributions to a research or creative program or project

This can be documented by one or more of the following:

• Publications that acknowledge the appointee’s significant and meaningful contribution to the work.

• Publications on which the appointee is an author.

• Other evidence (e.g., letters from collaborators or Principal Investigators) that work done by the

appointee contributed to publishable research.

• Active dissemination of information (beyond the boundaries of the campus) through informal

instruction, presentations, or other means stemming from the appointee’s research

accomplishments.


PAGE 85 OF 137

• Other evidence of recognized expertise may include formal documentation of intellectual effort and

participation in publishable research activities, first authorship on publications/patents,

presentation of research at regional/national meetings, invitations to review grant proposals and/or

journal articles, invitations to participate in research projects, and/or service on advisory panels.

Research publications and other creative accomplishments will be evaluated, not merely enumerated. There

should be evidence that the candidate is continuously and effectively engaged in research activity of scholarly

quality and significance within the defined area of expertise and specialization, contributing broad knowledge

and competency at a high level of independence to a research or creative program.

Professional competence and activity

Project series appointees are expected to engage in professional activities that are directly related to their

professional expertise and achievement. The appointee’s professional activities will be examined for evidence of

achievement and leadership in their field of expertise and for demonstrated progression in the development or

utilization of new approaches and techniques for the solution of professional problems.

Such activities may include:

• Participating in appropriate professional/technical societies or groups and other educational and

research organizations.

• Reviewing research proposals.

• Reviewing journal manuscripts and other publications related to the area of expertise.

B. RANK

Appointments

The initial rank (Assistant, Associate, or Full) of an appointee to the Project series is dictated by:

• The specialization, productivity, and experience of the candidate;

• The complexity and quality of the research for which the candidate will be responsible;

• The level of independence with which the candidate will work (working independently does not mean

that the candidate has an independent program); and

• The specialized research assignments/tasks the candidate will assume.

Advancements

As an academic appointee, advancement of a candidate in this series is based on individual qualifications and

meritorious performance/scholarly achievement and is not automatic or based on length of service.

Advancement through the ranks requires measurable growth in the candidate’s research efforts/activity with

respect to quality, productivity, scope, reputation, and impact within the research field.

Promotion to the next rank requires continued scholarly achievement and professional growth, resulting in

publishable research and other evidence of productivity, as well as increased professional recognition.

C. SALARY

Appointees to the Project series are compensated according to the Academic Salary Scales issued by the Office

of the President on a fiscal year basis. Off-scale components are allowable in this series (See APM 620).

Appointees may serve full-time, part-time, or without salary. Project titles may be supported by State and non-

State funds. Funding sources used to compensate the Project series must permit research and be approved by

either the Dean or Sponsored Projects.



of 137

D. TERMS OF SERVICE

An appointment or a reappointment to the Project series is made with a specified ending date. This is

communicated to the appointee in the Appointment Letter or the Reappointment Letter.


PAGE 87 OF 137

Maximum terms for appointments and reappointments are provided below; when appropriate, recommended

terms may be shorter. Reappointments may be made to the same rank and step, i.e., without a merit increase or

promotion.

The EVC has the authority to approve above-scale salary levels up to and including the Regental compensation

threshold. For salaries beyond the Regental compensation threshold, authority rests with The Regents on

recommendation of the President, after appropriate review and as prescribed in Section 101.2 (a)(2) of the

Standing Orders of The Regents.

Level Max. Appt. Term

Normal Periods of Service

Service Limits

Assistant Project I, II, III, IV, V, VI 2 Years 2 Years per Step 8 Years

(APM 311)

Associate Project I, II, III 2 Years 2 Years per Step None

Associate Project IV, V 3 Years 3 Years per Step None

Project I, II, III, IV 3 Years 3 Years per Step None

Project V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and Above Scale

3 Years None None

E. NORMAL PERIOD AT RANK AND/OR STEP

Normal periods of service at each step are listed in the table above. Six months or more of service, with or

without salary, in any fiscal year counts as one full year of service. Titles of Assistant Project V and VI, and

Associate Project IV and V are used only in exceptional situations and with proper justification. When service at

Assistant Project V is followed by service at Associate Project I, the normal period of combined service with both

titles at the steps indicated is two years. This applies for combined service at Assistant Project VI and Associate

Project II, at Associate Project IV and Project I, and at Associate Project V and Project II.



of 137


PAGE 89 OF 137

3052: RECRUITMENT

A. OPEN RECRUITMENT

To initiate a recruitment, the PI should complete form AP601: Job Posting Request (Researchers Only) and

submit it to his or her Dean’s office for approval and routing to the Academic Personnel Office (APO). APO is

responsible for approving all ads and posting on the UC Merced website. Approved ads will be posted in external

journals and websites by School staff. Ads will be posted for a minimum of thirty days to ensure broad access,

and no scheduled interviews should take place before the end of the thirty-day period.

During recruitment, PIs must pay attention to the employment eligibility of any international applicants.

Appropriate visas can take several months to obtain, and the PI should notify School staff and APO as early as

possible of a potential visa case. While an application for a visa cannot be finalized until the appointment is

approved, preliminary inquiries can often help in starting the visa process. Questions should be referred to the

Office of International Affairs (OIA). (see APM 530)

B. WAIVERS OF RECRUITMENT

It is understood that circumstances exist in which a Waiver of Recruitment is appropriate. Such circumstances

include, but are not limited to:

• A candidate is so uniquely qualified for the position (e.g., based on research expertise, or national or

international recognition, or specific knowledge, skills, or abilities) that an open recruitment is unlikely

to result in attracting a more qualified individual.

• A new appointee relocates his or her laboratory to UC Merced and brings individuals who are currently

funded by the project. Since the job is moving, the individuals employed on the project are moving with

the job.

• A candidate is a faculty member’s advisee and agrees to remain at UC Merced in a post-graduation

appointment to complete the work on an ongoing project and/or to write the results for publication of

the completed research.

A request for Waiver of Recruitment can be submitted via memo from the PI to the appropriate Dean. If the

Dean approves the request, it shall be forwarded to APO. The request should include:

• candidate’s name

• proposed title, step, annual salary, percentage, appointment begin and end date

• a description of how the candidate was identified

• an explanation of the reason for waiving the open recruitment (i.e., unique qualifications or

appointee is employed in a relocated lab)

C. REAPPOINTMENT

An open recruitment is not required in order to reappoint an individual when that individual was previously

recruited for the same position.





PAGE 90 OF 137

3053: APPOINTMENT The Project series is used for academic appointees who are expected to have a broader range of knowledge and

competency and a higher level of independence while engaging in research or contributing to a creative

program or project. Candidates must have earned a doctorate degree or its equivalent.

A. CRITERIA

Project series appointments are made to provide research projects with necessary skills, experience, and

knowledge. Individuals appointed to the series are expected to have specialized education, training and a higher

level of independence. At the Assistant level, the appointee contributes to the research efforts of existing

projects with a level of independent participation. At the Associate and Full levels, the appointee provides

considerable input in the planning and execution of research projects, moving towards independent project

development. Providing specialized skills in support of research, rather than conducting research as the principal

responsibility, is also allowable in this series.

B. PROCESS

• The Principal Investigator will prepare an appointment file for the selected candidate to be forwarded to

the appropriate Dean. The appointment file should include updated biographical information and the

recommendation for appointment. The appointment recommendation should outline specific

qualifications that apply to the Project series and the contributions expected to be made by the

candidate. Non-confidential letters of recommendation, evidence of outstanding research

accomplishments or other supporting documents may be included.

• If approved, the Dean will sign the appointment recommendation and forward the appointment file to

the Academic Personnel Office as Office of Record for personnel actions.

• An appointment letter will be issued to the candidate by the Dean’s office.


PAGE 91 OF 137

3054: MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW Appointments in this series are made at the normal period of service at the step to which the candidate is

appointed, or for less time. There are no limits on years of service in this series. Please refer to the Academic Salary Scales for the normal periods at each step.

The Dean is responsible for making certain that eligible candidates are reviewed and are eligible for merit review

after service at the normal period in step.

Appointees in the Project series are assessed on their demonstrated significant, original, and creative

contributions to a research or creative program or project; advancement of knowledge in the discipline;

professional competence and activity; and their University and public service, if applicable. This assessment

should be documented in the recommendation for reappointment. The reappointment process follows the

appointment process outlined above.




PAGE 92 OF 137



to misconduct, unsatisfactory work performance, or dereliction of academic duty. For non-Senate academic














to any previous discussions the supervisor has had with the appointee. The supervisor should follow-up with the


















is not corrected.






PAGE 93 OF 137


















Academic Personnel.







B. WRITTEN WARNING







shall provide:








of 137



PAGE 95 OF 137











E. REPRESENTATION





Academic Personnel.

G. RECORDS














PAGE 96 OF 137








NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES MAPP 306X SPECIALIST SERIES

PAGE 97 OF 137

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3061: General Guidelines

3063: Appointment


3066: Discipline



PAGE 98 OF 137

3061: GENERAL GUIDELINES The Specialist series is used for an academic appointee who has an identified area of technical specialization and

provides technical or specialized expertise (e.g., with instrumentation and research equipment or with social

science research methods) in the planning and execution of a research project or projects. At the Junior and

Assistant levels, the appointee enables research as part of a team. At the Associate and Full levels, the appointee

provides considerable independent input into the planning and execution of research. Normally, Specialists do

not have Principal Investigator (PI) status, but may obtain permission by exception and/or collaborate with a PI

in preparing research proposals for extramural funding. Specialists do not have any teaching responsibilities.

A Specialist differs from a Staff Research Associate title (or any other staff title) in that Specialists are required to

be actively/significantly involved in publishable research activities as documented through publications or other

methods; are required to maintain/enhance their professional competence; are required to show leadership in

their technical expertise; and as is the case in other academic series, mere length of service and continuous

meritorious performance are not sufficient justification for advancement.

Appointees in the Specialist series are assessed on their professional competence and activity, their University

and public service, and the value and impact of their contributions to their areas of research and their

advancement of knowledge in the discipline as judged by other academics and scientists through a process of

peer review (APM 330).

Ranks and Steps for Specialist Series

Level Normal Periods of Service

Junior Specialist I, II 1 Year per Step

Assistant Specialist I, II, III 2 Years per Step

Associate Specialist I, II, III 2 Years per Step

Associate Specialist IV None

Specialist I, II 3 Years per Step

Specialist III, IV, V None



PAGE 99 OF 137

3062: RECRUITMENT Specialists above the Junior level can be hired either through Open Recruitment (3062.A) or with a Waiver of

Recruitment (3062.B).

A. OPEN RECRUITMENT

To initiate a recruitment, the PI should complete form AP601: Job Posting Request (Researchers Only) and

submit it to his or her Dean’s office for approval and routing to the Academic Personnel Office (APO). APO is

responsible for approving all ads and posting on the UC Merced website. Approved ads will be posted in external

journals and websites by School staff. Ads will be posted for a minimum of thirty days to ensure broad access,

and no scheduled interviews should take place before the end of the thirty-day period.

During recruitment, PIs must pay attention to the employment eligibility of any international applicants.

Appropriate visas can take several months to obtain, and the PI should notify School staff and APO as early as

possible of a potential visa case. While an application for a visa cannot be finalized until the appointment is

approved, preliminary inquiries can often help in starting the visa process. Questions should be referred to the

Office of International Affairs (OIA). (see APM 530)

B. WAIVERS OF RECRUITMENT



• A candidate is so uniquely qualified for the position (e.g., based on research expertise, or national or

international recognition, or specific knowledge, skills, or abilities) that an open recruitment is unlikely

to result in attracting a more qualified individual.



the job.




• A request for Waiver of Recruitment can be submitted via memo from the PI to the appropriate Dean. If

the Dean approves the request, it shall be forwarded to APO. The request should include:



• a description of how the candidate was identified

• an explanation of the reason for waiving the open recruitment (i.e., unique qualifications or

appointee is employed in a relocated lab)

C. REAPPOINTMENT

An open recruitment is not required in order to reappoint an individual when that individual was previously

recruited for the same position.





PAGE 100 OF 137

3063: APPOINTMENT

A. TERM OF APPOINTMENT

An appointment or reappointment to a Specialist title is normally made with a specified ending date.

Appointments may be made on a full- or part-time basis. Reappointments may be made to the same rank and

step; i.e., without a merit increase or promotion.

B. CRITERIA

In judging a candidate for appointment in this series, the following criteria are provided as guidelines and may

be used flexibly where deemed necessary.

• Performance in research in specialized areas

• Professional competence and activity

• University and public service

Particular attention should be paid to the analytical evaluation of the candidate’s accomplishments.

General guidelines for initial appointment requirements are as follows:

• Junior Specialist: Recent bachelor’s degree related to proposed responsibilities.

• Assistant Specialist: Bachelor’s degree related to proposed responsibilities; up to five years relevant

experience.

• Associate Specialist: Bachelor’s or master’s degree (or equivalent); five to ten years relevant experience.

Advancement beyond Associate Specialist I requires meritorious performance and a growing record of

accomplishment and independence.

• Specialist: Master’s or doctorate (or equivalent); more than ten years relevant experience; significant

expertise and record of accomplishments. Advancement beyond Specialist I requires meritorious

performance and a growing record of accomplishments and specialized contributions that have a major

impact on the project(s).

In addition, appointment levels reflect the candidate’s expertise in the given specialty. The initial rank of an

appointee is determined by:

• the specialization and experience of the candidate;

• the complexity of the research for which the candidate will be responsible;

• the level of independence with which the candidate will work (working independently does not mean

that the candidate has an independent program); and

• the specialized research duties the candidate will assume.

C. SALARY

• Individuals appointed to this series are compensated on the Academic Salary Scale for the Specialist

series on a fiscal year basis

• Off-scale salaries are not allowable in the Specialist series

• Salaries are subject to range adjustments

• Each funding source for this series must permit research

• Appointments without salary are allowable in this series

http://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/1112/table24.pdf

http://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/1112/table24.pdf

of 137

D. PROCESS

1. The PI will prepare an appointment file for the selected candidate to be forwarded to the appropriate Dean.

The appointment file should contain an updated curriculum vitae, verification of funding, and a completed

AP-611 form, which provides the following information:



• information regarding any current UC employment to verify that candidate is not currently in a

represented position

• specific qualifications that apply to the Specialist series

• outline of expected duties and contributions

Non-confidential letters of recommendation or other supporting documents may be included.

2. If approved, the Dean will sign the AP-611 form and forward to APO for review.

3. Following sign-off by APO, the Dean’s office will issue an appointment letter to the candidate.

4. The completed file will be forwarded to APO as Office of Record for academic appointments.


PAGE 102 OF 137

3064: MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW All advancement cases are based on the individual’s achievements and the availability of funding. Normal

advancement will occur after one year at step at the Junior level, two years at step at the Assistant and

Associate level, and after three years at step at the Specialist level. Merit advancements are based on the

academic record since the last review while promotions are based on the career academic record.

The process for advancements follows the process for appointments. Additionally, the PI’s letter of

recommendation for merit or promotion should include an evaluation of the candidate’s work and his or her

contributions to the group effort, if relevant. Each Unit should establish set procedures for evaluation of

Specialist series appointees. While review done solely by the PI is acceptable, a fuller review, including input

from other equal or higher-ranking individuals in the Unit is preferable. The candidate may provide a written

Self-Statement if desired by the PI, the Unit, or the candidate him/herself.


PAGE 103 OF 137



to misconduct, unsatisfactory work performance, or dereliction of academic duty.

For non-Senate academic appointees who are subject to peer review for performance evaluation, demotion and

dismissal for unsatisfactory work performance shall involve the regular peer review process. Such peer review

shall be advisory to the administrator authorized to institute the demotion and dismissal action.











to any previous discussions the supervisor has had with the appointee. The supervisor should follow up with the


















is not corrected.






PAGE 104 OF 137


















Academic Personnel.







B. WRITTEN WARNING







shall provide:








of 137



PAGE 106 OF 137











E. REPRESENTATION





Academic Personnel.

G. RECORDS














PAGE 107 OF 137








NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES MAPP 307X POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS

PAGE 108 OF 137


3072: Recruitment

3073: Appointment



3076: Discipline



PAGE 109 OF 137

3071: GENERAL GUIDELINES The following policies and procedures are intended to supplement the Memorandum of Understanding with

the Postdoctoral Unit and the Academic Personnel Manual (APM 390) and have been developed to support the

University’s goal of recruiting the highest quality research team by ensuring appointments are based on the

essential job functions of the position.

Postdoctoral Scholars contribute to the educational and research mission of the University. The creativity and

expertise provided by these individuals support scientific and scholarly advances.

A Postdoctoral appointment is a temporary appointment designed to give individuals the opportunity to conduct

research under the guidance of a faculty mentor. The time spent as a Postdoctoral Scholar is in preparation for a

permanent position in academe, industry, government, or the nonprofit sector. For many, Postdoctoral work is a

critical step in securing future employment.

A. DEFINITION

A Postdoctoral Scholar is an individual who:

• Has been awarded a doctoral degree (or equivalent) within the past ten years.

• Will pursue a full-time program of advanced training and research under the direction of a Principal

Investigator (PI) with an appointment in an academic School or Organized Research Unit (ORU).

• Will be supported by campus research grants or contracts, by fellowships administered by the campus,

or by other approved fund sources.

• Has not previously been a Postdoctoral Scholar for more than 5 years combined (this includes all

institutions, domestic and international, as well as UC Merced).

B. CATEGORIES OF POSTDOCTORAL APPOINTMENTS

Postdoctoral Scholar appointments differ with respect to compensation, benefits, and taxation. The source of

support determines the category of the Postdoctoral Scholar. Members of all categories work with faculty

mentors.

a. Postdoctoral Scholar - Employees (3252)

Paid a salary which may be supported by a) sponsor's research grants or contracts; b) general funds or

opportunity funds; or c) other University discretionary funds (by exception only).

b. Postdoctoral Scholar - Fellows (3253)

Receives a stipend or fellowship from an extramural agency, administered through the University on

behalf of the Fellow or the Fellow's faculty sponsor (e.g., NIH training grant).

c. Postdoctoral Scholar - Paid Direct (3254)

Has been awarded a fellowship or traineeship for postdoctoral study by an extramural agency. The

agency pays the fellowship or traineeship directly to the Postdoctoral Scholar, rather than through the

University.

Postdoctoral Scholars may be assigned to more than one Postdoctoral Scholar title concurrently, depending on

University and extramural funding agency requirements. The total of the combined appointments may not

exceed 100% time.

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/agreement.html



PAGE 110 OF 137

3072: RECRUITMENT The University of California is an equal opportunity employer committed to excellence through diversity. In

order to promote equal opportunity, an open recruitment must be conducted for Postdoctoral Scholars. The

recruitment and selection process must be fully documented, reviewed, and approved before a proposed

appointment will be acted upon. The Principal Investigator (PI) should work with the appropriate School staff

member for assistance and confirmation of the recruitment process.

RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE

The recruitment procedure should not begin until a funding source for the proposed appointment has been

identified. Faculty members who do not yet have grant funding available must formally request to use Bridge Funding. This is a temporary measure to allow the use of faculty start-up funds only until the faculty member

obtains research grants or other appropriate funding.

The recruitment process begins with the completion of the Non-Senate Job Posting Request form (AP 401). The

PI may work in consultation with the School staff to complete the form, which provides a job description and

requirements and indicates what supporting documentation is requested from the candidates. Supporting

documents typically include, but are not limited to:

• Cover Letter

• CV

• Statement of Research

• List of References

Once approved by the School Dean, the AP401 form, (along with the Bridge Funding form, if needed) is

forwarded to the Academic Personnel Office (APO) for posting on the UC Merced website. External ads are

encouraged, but not required. The ad must remain open for at least thirty days before any scheduled interviews

may occur.

WAIVERS OF RECRUITMENT



• A candidate is so uniquely qualified for the position (e.g., based on research expertise, or specific

knowledge, skills, or abilities) that an open recruitment is unlikely to result in attracting a more qualified

individual.



the job.




The waiver of recruitment request should include a memo from the PI to the Dean detailing the reasons for the

request, the credentials of the proposed candidate, and the expected impact of the candidate on the PI’s

research project. A copy of the candidate’s curriculum vitae and any other supporting documents (e.g., letters of

reference) should be forwarded along with the memo. Once the request has been approved by the Dean, the

request packet should be forwarded to APO.

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Bridge%20Funding%20Exception%20Request%20PDF%20FORM.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/Bridge%20Funding%20Exception%20Request%20PDF%20FORM.pdf



PAGE 111 OF 137

3073: APPOINTMENT

A. TERMS OF SERVICE

Postdoctoral Scholar appointments are intended to provide a full-time program of advanced academic

preparation and research training. Their terms of service are governed by a Memorandum of Understanding between the University of California and the United Auto Workers (UAW). These terms include:

a. Initial appointments are of one year’s duration, are temporary and have fixed end dates.

b. Notice of appointment must be provided to the Postdoctoral Scholar no later than 30 days prior to the

start of the appointment.

c. Total duration of an individual’s postdoctoral service may not exceed five years, including postdoctoral

service at other institutions.

d. It is within the University’s sole discretion to appoint, reappoint, or not reappoint a Postdoctoral

Scholar.

B. APPOINTMENT FILE DOCUMENTATION & PROCEDURES

Upon final selection of a candidate, the PI, in conjunction with the School staff, will prepare an appointment

request file, which will include:

• Completed Postdoctoral Scholar Appointment Form AP16

• Postdoctoral Scholar Personal Data Form AP15, completed by the candidate

• Verification of PhD degree

• Copy of the candidate’s curriculum vitae

The request file shall be forwarded to the appropriate Dean for approval of the appointment. The completed

file shall be forwarded to APO as Office of Record for personnel actions.

C. SALARY

Beginning June 1, 2011, UC implemented the Postdoctoral Scholar Experience-Based Salary/Stipend Minima in

accordance with the NIH rates. An individual Postdoctoral Scholar’s level of pay is determined by calculating the

total number of months of postdoctoral experience at any university.

See Table 23 for the current salary scale.

All new Postdoctoral Scholar appointments must be at the salary level appropriate to the candidate’s

experience.

As of June 1, 2011, once a Postdoctoral Scholar is appointed at or above the appropriate experience level, all

reappointments must be to at least the appropriate experience-based salary/stipend level.

• In the event a Postdoctoral Scholar initially appointed on or after June 1, 2011 receives a multiple-year

appointment, the Postdoctoral Scholar must thereafter receive salary/stipend increases to the

appropriate experience-based salary/stipend level on her/his anniversary date.

• If a Postdoctoral Scholar's salary/stipend amount is above the appropriate experience level on

reappointment, or on her/his anniversary date for Postdoctoral Scholars with multi-year appointments,

the Postdoctoral Scholar shall receive at least a two percent (2%) salary increase.

D. PHASE-IN OF SALARY SCALE FOR POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS EMPLOYED AS OF AUGUST 12, 2010

From June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2014, a Postdoctoral Scholar receiving a salary/stipend below the

appropriate experience rate shall be moved (on reappointment or anniversary date) to the appropriate salary

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/agreement.html

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/AP16_Postdoctoral_Appointment_Form.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/AP15_Postdoctoral_Scholar_Personal_Data_Form.pdf

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/_files/table24_pd_salaryscale.pdf

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-033.html

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/_files/1112/table23.pdf

of 137

rate for her/his experience level provided such move does not exceed a 3% increase from June 1, 2011 through

May 31, 2013, and a 3.5% increase from June 1, 2013 - May 31, 2014. If the increase would exceed 3%, the

Postdoctoral Scholar shall receive a 3% increase to her/his salary/stipend for the period through May 31, 2013,

and 3.5% through May 31, 2014.


PAGE 113 OF 137

Note: By June 1, 2014, campuses must have all Postdoctoral Scholars appointed on this scale.

BENEFITS

Postdoctoral Scholars in all title codes (3252, 3253, 3254) must have health benefits coverage while employed at

UCM. Please consult the MOU between UC and UAW for information.

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/contract_articles/px-03-benefits-112010.pdf


PAGE 114 OF 137

3074: MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW A Postdoctoral Scholar may be reappointed up to a maximum of five years total. Reappointments are usually

made for one year at a time, but may be for up to three years, or may be for less than a year under

circumstances that include:

• Lack of full-year funding. For example, a PI may be waiting for renewal, but without confirmation of

award, is advised to only appoint for the period he or she has funding.

• Continuation of the project is less than 1 year.

• Visa limitations.

PROCESS

Should a PI wish to reappoint a particular Postdoctoral Scholar, within the five-year limit, the PI, in

conjunction with the School staff, will prepare an appointment request file, which will include:

• Completed Postdoctoral Scholar Appointment Form AP 16.

• Postdoctoral Scholar Annual Review Summary AP441

The request file shall be forwarded to the appropriate Dean for approval of the reappointment. The

completed file shall be forwarded to APO as Office of Record for personnel actions.

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/AP16_Postdoctoral_Appointment_Form1.pdf

http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/UCM-AP441.pdf


PAGE 115 OF 137

3075: SABBATICAL AND OTHER LEAVES

A. POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR:

1. Personal Time Off (PTO)

Postdoctoral Scholars with 100% 12-month appointment are eligible to use up to twenty-four (24) work

days of personal time off within a 12-month period. For more information, please refer to Article 17 of

the current agreement.

2. Sick Leave

Postdoctoral Scholars are eligible for sick leave, without loss of compensation, for up to twelve days per

twelve-month appointment period. All twelve (12) work days are available for use on the first day of

appointment.

Appointees with less than 12-month appointments are eligible for sick leave in proportion to the

appointment period; for example, a Postdoctoral Scholar with a six-month appointment is eligible for up

to six days of sick leave.

For more information, please refer to Article 22 of the current MOU.

3. Other leaves

Subject to the provisions of Article 12, leaves of absence may be with or without pay, may be for

medical purposes and/or non-medical reasons, and are subject to the approval of the University.

Approved leaves do not continue beyond the predetermined end date of the Postdoctoral Scholar’s

appointment.

B. TYPES OF LEAVE:

• Family Care/Medical Leave

• Pregnancy Disability Leave

• Personal Leave of Absence without Pay

• Bereavement Leave

• Jury Duty

• Military Leave

• Other leaves – Military Caregiver, Qualifying Exigency, Military Spouse/Domestic Partner

For more information, please refer to Article 12 of the current agreement.

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/contract_articles/px-17-personal-time-off-112010.pdf

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/contract_articles/px-22-sick-leave-112010.pdf

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/contract_articles/px-12-leaves-of-absence-112010.pdf

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/contract_articles/px-12-leaves-of-absence-112010.pdf


PAGE 116 OF 137

3076: DISCIPLINE It is essential that any concerns about a Postdoctoral Scholar’s performance be addressed in a timely manner.

Complete documentation is essential and required. If any concerns develop, the PI should immediately

reference Article 5 of the current collective bargaining agreement.

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/contract_articles/px-05-discipline-and-dismissal-112010.pdf


PAGE 117 OF 137

3077: GRIEVANCE PROCESS Postdoctoral Scholars may file a grievance if they believe the University has violated a specific provision in the

current bargaining agreement. If a grievance is filed, the United Auto Workers (UAW) which represents the

Postdoctoral Scholars may notify the University’s Labor Relations (LR) or Academic Personnel Office (APO). If LR

or APO contacts a PI about a grievance, they should respond to the inquiry or request for information as soon as

possible. For more information, please refer to Article 6 of the current agreement.

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/post_docs/contract_articles/px-06-grievance-and-arbitration-112010.pdf

NON-SENATE RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL TITLES MAPP 310X LECTURERS

PAGE 118 OF 137


3102: Recruitment

3103: Appointment



PAGE 119 OF 137

3101: GENERAL GUIDELINES Policies and procedures regarding terms and conditions of appointments in the Lecturer series which are not

included in the MAPP are contained in APM 283, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Non-Senate Instructional Unit (Unit 18) and the Contract Administration Manual. The MOU shall prevail if there is

an apparent discrepancy between the APM and the MOU.

DEFINITIONS Titles in the Unit 18 Lecturer series do not confer membership in the Academic Senate. Lecturers are also known

as Non-Senate Faculty or “NSF.” This series does not include the titles Lecturer PSOE, Lecturer SOE, Senior

Lecturer PSOE or Senior Lecturer SOE (see MAPP Chapter 2 Section 05).

• Lecturer (Pre-Six): This title is used to designate individuals who have full or partial responsibility for

instruction of assigned courses (or equivalent work) for a specified period of time. Used during the

Lecturer’s first twelve semesters (six years) of employment in the same Unit at UC Merced.

• Lecturer (Continuing): This title is used to designate individuals who are appointed to teach courses for

an indefinite period of time following completion of twelve semesters of employment in any Unit 18

title in the same UC Merced Unit. Semesters of employment need not be consecutive and can be at any

positive appointment percentage. Appointment to this title can be made only when instructional need

has been formally determined and the appointee is found to meet the required excellence standard

following completion of an Excellence Review (MAPP 3104).

• Senior Lecturer (may be Pre-Six or Continuing): This title is used to designate individuals who have an

appropriately senior level of achievement and experience . Designation as a Senior Lecturer shall be

given to appointees who qualify for a Lecturer title and who provide service of exceptional value to the

University.

• Lecturer in Summer Session: This title is used to designate Lecturers appointed on a temporary basis to

teach courses in the Summer Session. Summer Session appointments do not count as Unit 18 semesters

of service.

Note: Lecturers without salary are not members of Unit 18; however, the same procedures used for initial appointment and reappointment of pre-six Lecturers should be followed for without-salary appointments and

reappointments. Deans’ offices are encouraged to contact APO for assistance with use of this title.

RESTRICTIONS 1. Graduate level courses may be taught by appointees to Lecturer titles only with prior approval from the

Chair of Graduate and Research Council, per Academic Senate policy.

2. Registered UC students may not be appointed to Lecturer titles. Advanced degree candidates who are

not currently registered may be appointed as Lecturers by exception. Such appointments require prior approval from the Dean of the Graduate Division.




http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/nonsenateinstructional_nsi/mou/index.html

http://senate.ucmerced.edu/files/public/Policy%20for%20lecturers%20teaching%20grad%20courses%20_2_.pdf

http://graduatedivision.ucmerced.edu/sites/graduatedivision.ucmerced.edu/files/documents/PDFs/request_for_exception_rev012015.pdf

http://graduatedivision.ucmerced.edu/sites/graduatedivision.ucmerced.edu/files/documents/PDFs/request_for_exception_rev012015.pdf


PAGE 120 OF 137

RESPONSIBILITY

DEAN

School Deans have responsibility for administering personnel actions regarding pre-six Lecturer appointments

and reappointments. School evaluations and recommendations regarding pre-six appointments and

reappointments shall be made pursuant to School procedures and in accordance with the MOU.

ACADEMIC SENATE

Per Legislative Ruling 7.06 by the University Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction, “it is the right and responsibility

of the Academic Senate members of an academic department to provide administration with advice on the

instructional performance of non-Senate faculty. In accord with Academic Senate Bylaw 35.C, and re-affirming

Legislative Ruling 12.75, only members of the Academic Senate may vote on the departmental recommendation

in a merit action involving non-Senate instructional faculty. A department may solicit a recommendation or vote

from non-Senate instructional faculty to be used in its deliberations.”

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/appendix2.html

http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/manual/blpart1.html

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/appendix2.html


PAGE 121 OF 137

3102: RECRUITMENT A thorough and determined search should be made both inside and outside the University for candidates,

including candidates who are minorities, women, handicapped persons, disabled veterans, and Vietnam-era

veterans. The letter and the spirit of the affirmative action policy should be followed in all recruitment

activities. Special attention must be given to legal requirements regarding the recruitment and hiring of foreign

nationals to ensure that they hold visas and employment authorization that allow compensation for services.

School staff and the Academic Personnel Office should be notified as early as possible of a potential visa case.

Questions should be referred to the Office of International Affairs.

Available academic-year Lecturer positions must at a minimum be advertised on the UC Merced website.

Posting on the Northern California Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC) website is recommended,

and other external ads are encouraged if funding is available. The AP-4 form, Non-Senate Job Posting Request, is

prepared by School staff and routed to the Academic Personnel Office for review and posting on the UC Merced

website. Any external ads will then be posted by School staff.

Interested candidates should submit the following during the application process:

1. Curriculum Vitae

2. Teaching Evaluations

3. Any other materials required by the School, which may include:

• List of references

• Self-Statement or Statement of Teaching Philosophy

• Sample Syllabi

• Other evidence of teaching proficiency

Schools shall establish procedures for assessment and selection of candidates based on demonstrated

competence in the field and teaching ability, as evidenced by requisite degree and/or previous teaching

experience and performance. Master’s and/or PhD degree is required unless an exception is granted by the Vice

Provost for Academic Personnel (VPAP). Experience and/or professional degree must be appropriate to the

course(s) which the candidate is to teach.



http://academicpersonnel.ucmerced.edu/pdf/AP4_Non_Senate_Job_Posting_Request_Form2.pdf


PAGE 122 OF 137

3103: APPOINTMENT

TERMS OF APPOINTMENT 1. Initial appointments to Unit 18 titles are normally made for terms of one year or less, but may be for a

period of up to two years. Reappointments in the first six years of service may be made for a term not to

exceed three years given appropriate funding allocation. Continuing Appointments do not have a

specified ending date, and shall terminate only by a full layoff (see Article 17 of the MOU) or by

dismissal in accordance with relevant disciplinary procedures (see Article 30 of the MOU).

2. Appointments of a full academic year (two semesters) will be made on a 9/12 basis effective July 1

through June 30. This pay period is to be used regardless of the percent time of the appointment, and

shall be used when the appointment is approved as late as the end of Fall semester of the given year

(which would require payments retroactive to July 1). Appointments for only one semester are made on

a 9/9 basis.

3. Service dates reflect the actual service period; that is, a Lecturer is expected to work from the first day

of the semester to the last day of the semester. Note that the semester begins before formal instruction

begins. Academic year dates are published annually by the Registrar’s Office. Because service and pay

periods differ, appointees should be aware that unexpected leaves without salary or mid-term

resignation might result in overpayment that must be reimbursed to the University.

4. At the time of appointment to a seventh semester of service within the same Unit, a pre-six Lecturer will

be given a two-step salary increase if the individual has not received a two-step increase during the

previous six semesters of service. If the Lecturer has been given a one-step increase during the first six

semesters, he or she will be given a one-step increase in the seventh semester. (MOU Art. 7a.C.4.c)

5. All assignments must conform to the Workload Policy approved by the School.

6. The At Your Service website provides information regarding benefits and their relationship to workload

percentages.

REAPPOINTMENT (PRE-SIX) This section refers to reappointment that commences prior to completion of six years of service in the same

Unit. See section 3104 below for Continuing Appointment (“post-six”) procedures.

Reappointment files must contain sufficient materials to document the demonstrated competence of the

candidate in keeping with University of California standards of excellence. Any reappointment shall be preceded

by an assessment of the performance of the Lecturer, which shall be undertaken in accordance with the School’s

applicable procedures. Such assessments may take on added significance should the individual subsequently be

proposed for a Continuing Appointment. Assessment of Lecturers for reappointment shall be based on the

following:

Demonstrated competence in the field, as evidenced by:

• Requisite degree, and/or

• Previous teaching experience

Demonstrated ability in teaching. Performance is measured by evaluation of qualities and evidence such as:

• Command of the subject matter;

• Ability to organize and present course materials;

• Ability to stimulate imaginative thinking and encourage critical and analytical skills;

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/nonsenateinstructional_nsi/contract_articles/ix-17_layoffreductionintimeandreemployment_1201.pdf

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/nonsenateinstructional_nsi/contract_articles/ix-30_disciplineanddismissal_1201.pdf

http://registrar.ucmerced.edu/schedules/calendars

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/nonsenateinstructional_nsi/contract_articles/ix-7a_nsfappointments_1201.pdf

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/


PAGE 123 OF 137

• Ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students;

• Appropriately current syllabi, reading lists, and other instructional material; and

• Student evaluations, including the use of student learning outcomes.

NON-REAPPOINTMENT No notice of non-reappointment is required for appointments that terminate on the scheduled end date when

total service is less than six years. Termination or reduction in time prior to the scheduled end date must be in

compliance with MOU Art. 17.C.

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/nonsenateinstructional_nsi/contract_articles/ix-17_layoffreductionintimeandreemployment_1201.pdf


PAGE 124 OF 137

3104: MERIT, PROMOTION, APPRAISAL REVIEW Reappointments which commence after twelve semesters of service in a Unit 18 title in the same Unit at UC

Merced, known as “Continuing Appointments,” can be made only after an instructional need has been

established.

Conferment of a Continuing Appointment following an Excellence Review after six years of service, and the

subsequent merit reviews, are intended to reward those individuals who meet specified needs and standards of

excellence after a programmatic decision has been made to allocate resources for a Continuing Appointment.

The retention of these candidates beyond the sixth year is a significant academic personnel action and the

criteria and guidelines herein must be carefully followed in the review process.

INITIAL CONTINUING APPOINTMENT

DETERMINATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL NEED

Instructional need must be established before proceeding with the Excellence Review. Instructional need to

establish a Continuing Appointment shall exist when the Dean determines the following with respect to the

initial year of the Continuing Appointment (MOU Art. 7b.B):

1. There is a curricular need for courses to be taught by Lecturers in the area in which the Lecturer under

consideration has taught, and

2. the Lecturer under consideration is qualified to teach the course(s), and

3. a Continuing Appointee is not already expected to teach the course(s).

Instructional need will not exist when:

1. A specified Senate faculty member is designated to teach the course(s) previously assigned to the

Lecturer in the next academic year;

2. A graduate student whose training is in the same discipline, or where the assignment is made pursuant

to an academic plan for pedagogical training, is designated to teach the course(s) previously assigned to

the Lecturer during the initial appointment year;

3. An unanticipated distinguished Visiting Professor or Adjunct Professor is designated to teach the

course(s) previously assigned to the Lecturer during the initial appointment year;

4. The assignment of the Lecturer to teach the course(s) conflicts with the established School academic

program requirements for intellectual diversity;

5. Other courses in the area in which the Lecturer has taught and for which he or she is currently qualified

are neither available nor taught during the initial appointment year; or

6. The course(s) have been assigned to another Continuing Appointee with more service, and there are no

other courses taught by Lecturers with less seniority in the area where the candidate has been teaching

and is qualified to teach.

APO will send out a call to the Deans for Needs Assessments on or about August 15th of each year; the

Assessment should be forwarded to the Provost/EVC via the Associate Director of Academic Personnel.

The Needs Assessment should address the following questions:

1. Is there a continuing or anticipated instructional need for the courses that the Continuing Appointee will

teach? The determination of need cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable, and should take into account

these considerations:

• The relative needs or demands of budgetary resources, and/or

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/collective_bargaining_units/nonsenateinstructional_nsi/contract_articles/ix-7b_processforinitialcontinuingappointments_1201.pdf

of 137

• The review and assessment by the campus, based on its academic judgment, of curricular needs,

program needs, and relative need for faculty of various ranks.


PAGE 126 OF 137

2. Is there a need for teaching so specialized in character that it cannot be done with equal effectiveness

by Senate faculty members or other temporary appointees?

The Provost/EVC will review the Assessment and issue a responses in writing, either approving or not approving

the FTE requests.

ESTABLISHING THE CONTINUING APPOINTMENT PERCENTAGE

Normally, the Lecturer’s initial Continuing Appointment base percentage will be at least equal to his or her

appointment percentage in the previous academic year (e.g., the sixth year). It may be lower, however, if the

Dean determines that the course(s) taught by the Lecturer in the previous year will not be offered, or will not be

taught by Lecturers because Instructional Need has changed for one or more of the reasons cited above.

EXCELLENCE REVIEW

When there has been a positive instructional need determination, a Lecturer who has been appointed to twelve

semesters of service must undergo an Excellence Review to determine whether she or he meets the excellence

standard required for a Continuing Appointment.

The Excellence Review will be conducted during the academic year in which the Lecturer’s eleventh or twelfth

semester falls in the Spring semester. Eligibility letters will be issued by the Academic Personnel Office each

March.

Prior to the initiation of the Excellence Review (i.e., before the Procedural Safeguard Statement is initiated),

normally in March of the previous year, the Lecturer under consideration shall be notified in writing of the

review, and the timing, criteria, and procedures that will be followed. Such notice will be issued to the candidate

by the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel, with a copy to the Dean. This letter will indicate that the

candidate’s materials are due to the Dean’s office by July 15, and the completed Case File is due to APO by the

following March 15. (Schedule for AP Actions). Candidates may be required to turn in case materials to their

particular Schools or Units on an earlier date to allow for time for internal review procedures; such direction will

come directly from the School or Unit.

Once the Excellence Review is initiated (i.e., the Procedural Safeguard Statement has been initiated), the Case

File shall continue through the entire review process (i.e., all files, including files in which the School

recommends against a Continuing Appointment, shall be forwarded to all reviewing entities). The candidate,

however, may request in writing to the VPAP at any time that the review be halted. If such a request is made,

the file will not continue through the review process, and reappointment will not be considered further.

CONTINUING APPOINTMENT CRITERIA

Consideration for a Continuing Appointment shall be made on the basis of demonstrated excellence in the field

and in all three of the following categories:

• Teaching/instructional performance;

• Academic responsibility;

• Other assigned duties which may include University co-curricular and community service. (MOU 7b.D) Instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence demonstrating such qualities as:

• Command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new topics;

• Ability to organize and present course materials;

• Ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance of the subject matter;




of 137

• Ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to do creative work;

• Achievements of students in their fields; and

• Evidence of learning as determined by learning outcome assessment. (MOU 7b.D)



PAGE 128 OF 137

REVIEW COMMITTEE

Excellence Reviews will be conducted by a Review Committee within the School appointed by the Dean in

consultation with Senate faculty and composed of Senate faculty with sufficient knowledge in the field of

expertise of the individual being reviewed. In addition, the School will make reasonable efforts to ensure that a

qualified non-Senate faculty member (e.g., Lecturer) be a member of each review committee. All such service

will be voluntary.

PREPARATION OF THE CASE FILE

All candidates for Excellence Review will complete the Procedural Safeguard Statement to ensure that their

rights under Articles 7b and 7c of the MOU have been explained and upheld.

Candidate’s Materials

Once a Lecturer has been informed of her or his eligibility for an Excellence Review, she or he is expected to

assemble a file of documentation including:

1. Updated curriculum vitae, including teaching information and current address;

2. Instructional materials that may include syllabi, tests and reading lists;

3. Student evaluations, including written comments;

4. Evidence of student learning outcomes assessment; and

5. Optional materials that may include letters of assessment not solicited by the School (such as

assessment by peers or other faculty members or from former students), a statement of pedagogical

philosophy and goals, and/or other relevant materials such as a self-statement or self-evaluation. The

program or School may have specific requirements regarding these or other materials.

Other Documentation of Performance

The School will gather other evidence for evaluation, which may include:

1. Assessment from classroom visitations by colleagues and evaluators;

2. Annual pre-six assessments; and

3. Solicited letters of assessment.

The candidate shall have the opportunity to review the file and to respond in writing within five business days.

Any such statement will become part of the Case File.

Case Analysis

It is the Review Committee’s responsibility to submit analytical comments in the form of a Case Analysis

concerning the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. These comments must be accompanied by evidence from the

materials included in the file. Any references to confidential letter writers must be by alpha code. The Case

Analysis should include the following:

1. Evaluation of performance in all assigned duties and evaluation of qualifications in relation to criteria for

a Continuing Appointment;

2. Recommendation for or against Continuing Appointment; and

3. Merit recommendation: if the candidate is found to have met the excellence standard for a Continuing

Appointment, the salary must be raised to the minimum annual salary for Continuing Appointment per

Table 17-A of the Academic Salary Scales.

The candidate shall have the opportunity to review the Case Analysis and to respond in writing within five

business days. Any such statement will become part of the Case File.


http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/1314/table17a.pdf

of 137

Faculty Vote

If so specified in the Unit’s voting procedures, the Case File may be considered by voting members of the Unit.

Any discussion and vote by the Unit should be recorded in a Transmittal Memo written by the Chair and

included in the Case File which is then forwarded to the Dean.


PAGE 130 OF 137

Dean’s Recommendation Letter

In the Letter, the Dean provides his or her recommendation regarding the proposed action and supplies

additional analysis as needed. The Dean should also either endorse the salary recommendation put forth or

provide justification for a different recommendation.

Routing

Once completed, the Case File is routed to the Academic Personnel Office for review by the Vice Chancellor for

Academic Personnel. The VPAP will make a recommendation to the Provost/EVC, who shall make the final

decision regarding granting a Continuing Appointment.

MERIT REVIEWS Every March, the Academic Personnel Office will issue letters of eligibility for Merit Reviews for Continuing

Appointees. It is the School’s responsibility to evaluate Continuing Appointees every three years. Each School,

using standards of excellence appropriate to the particular discipline or subject areas, should develop systematic

methods and criteria for discriminating among levels of performance. The process for conducting a Merit Review

for a Continuing Appointee shall follow the same procedure outlined above for an Excellence Review. The

primary criterion for review will be demonstrated excellence in teaching, along with the other criteria outlined in

MAPP 3104.A.4 above. Well-documented evidence should be provided on which the appraisal of teaching

competence has been based. A positive review shall result in a merit increase of at least 6% on the Academic Salary Scale (MOU Article 22.C.2.b). If during the course of a review, or at any other time, the School

determines that based on the evaluation criteria there has been a significant decline in the quality of

performance by the Continuing Appointee, the procedures outlined in Article 30 of the MOU must be followed.

A Continuing Appointee may request a one-year deferral of the review. Future eligibility for review will be based

on the new review date.

Schools should inform the candidates of internal deadlines and the opportunity to submit materials to be

included in the Case File. If the candidate does not provide materials by the School’s due date, the School will

conduct the review based on the materials available in the School as of the due date.

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/1314/table17b.pdf

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/1314/table17b.pdf

http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/ix/docs/ix_2011-2015_22_merit-review-process.pdf

http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/ix/docs/ix_2011-2015_30_discipline-dismissal.pdf

LADDER-RANK FACULTY AND OTHER ACADEMIC SENATE TITLES MAPP 6001 ENDOWED CHAIRS

PAGE 131 OF 137

POLICY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF ENDOWED CHAIRS

A. DEFINITION AND AUTHORITY

Policy

This policy is in accordance with University of California policy (APM 191) and shall guide the establishment

of all Endowed Chairs. Endowed Chairs are awarded to honor extraordinary academic achievement and to

recruit and retain the most distinguished scholars.

Definition

An endowed chair is a perquisite that is supported by income from an endowment fund established by a gift

or gifts from private sources and is made available to a distinguished faculty member in support of his or her

teaching, research, and service activities. An endowed chair may be assigned to a School, Unit or Organized

Research Unit (ORU).

Approvals

The establishment and naming of an Endowed Chair is subject to approval by the University of California

Office of the President (UCOP) upon recommendation of the Chancellor. No commitment for establishing

and naming a Chair shall be made to a prospective donor prior to Presidential approval.

B. REQUIRED MINIMUM LEVELS FOR ENDOWED CHAIRS

Minimum Endowment Principal

The minimum standard for endowed chairs at UC Merced will be set at $500,000.

Faculty and Salary Provision

Prior to any commitment on the part of the University, the campus must have available and must commit, if

necessary, the general fund faculty provision and salary for the holder of the Chair. [Note: University policy

allows for use of endowment payout to support base salary unless expressly prohibited by the gift

agreement. APM 191.D.2,5]

C. ESTABLISHMENT, NAMING, AND FUNDING OF THE ENDOWED CHAIR

An Endowed Chair will be established only upon acceptance by the Chancellor of either :

1. Cash or a binding pledge that immediately or within a reasonable period of time will create a corpus in

an amount sufficient to provide income adequate for meeting the purposes of the chair, or

2. A legally binding commitment to provide appropriate income at the end of each fiscal year from an

equivalent corpus held inviolate by a trustee.

In the latter case, see UC policy, APM 191, B.7. Following approval by the President, the Chair will be deemed

“conditionally established” until full funding is achieved. [Note: UC policy provides for contingent approval of

Chairs to be funded through a bequest for deferred gift. See APM 191.B.6,7]

Associate Vice Chancellor for Development or designee shall coordinate all contacts and discussions with

prospective donors.

The subject area of the Endowed Chair must be consistent with the mission of the University of California and

the academic plan of the campus. The gift instrument shall permit appropriate alternative distribution of the

income by the campus if the subject area of the Endowed Chair ceases to be consistent with the University’s

mission or the academic plan of the campus. Such alternative distribution shall be as closely related to the

donor’s original intent as is feasible.

A Chair may be named in honor of the donor or an honoree proposed by the donor, subject to approval by the

President.






PAGE 132 OF 137

Income from an Endowed Chair is to be made available to the faculty member appointed to the Chair in support

of teaching and research. In addition, unless expressly prohibited by the gift instrument, fund payout may be

used for all, or for a portion, of base salary, off-scale component of salary, sabbatical supplement, summer

salary, additional compensation under a campus-approved compensation plan in accordance with applicable

policies, or other additional compensation permitted by University policy (APM 191.D.2,5).

D. ADMINISTRATION OF ENDOWED CHAIRS

Income from an Endowed Chair is to be made available to the faculty member appointed to the Chair in support

of teaching, research and service. In addition, unless expressly prohibited by the gift instrument, fund payout

may be used for all, or for a portion, of base salary, off-scale component of salary, sabbatical supplement,

summer salary, or other additional compensation permitted by University policy. Use of funds will be reviewed

annually by the Provost/EVC, Associate Vice Chancellor for Development, and Alumni Relations.

The budget in any given year will not exceed the income available from the existing endowment.

The terms of the endowment shall be reviewed at least once every five years to ensure that the campus is

continuing to fulfill its legal obligations to use Endowed Chair income in a manner consistent with the donor’s

expressed intent. (APM 191.D.4)

During any period in which the Chair is not permanently occupied while the search proceeds for a suitable

candidate, the Chancellor or the Provost/EVC may authorize use of the funds, after consultation with the

relevant Unit(s), to use the endowment’s income for other purposes in support of research and teaching in the

designated area of study.

If an established, fully-funded Chair has remained vacant for a period of three consecutive years or more, or if

the Chair’s accumulated income exceeds five years of payout, the office of the Provost/EVC, in consultation with

the Controller’s Office, shall review the fund’s terms and administrative history to ascertain the reason for the

accumulation and take appropriate corrective action consistent with the terms of the gift agreement or

consistent with the terms of the administrative allocation.

Provision shall be made in the gift document for the addition of unexpended endowment income to principal

when circumstances warrant such action.

E. APPOINTMENT TO ENDOWED CHAIRS

Unless otherwise provided in the terms of the gift, an individual will be appointed for a period of five years, with

the option of reappointment. Appointments to endowed chairs shall be made in accordance with regularly

established procedures for faculty appointments (MAPP 2013). All appointments must be reviewed at least once

every five years. The Chair appointee will be informed of this policy during recruitment. An Endowed Chair may

be filled successively by a series of individuals appointed for prescribed periods, unless otherwise provided in

the terms of the gift. An individual may simultaneously occupy more than one Endowed Chair at any given time.

The Chancellor (or designee) has final approval authority for appointment to an Endowed Chair. If the proposed

salary is above-scale, Regental authority is required to approve the salary.

F. APPOINTMENT PROCESS

An Endowed Chair may be used as a recruitment tool during the faculty appointment negotiation process, in

which circumstance the case materials for the Endowed Chair appointment recommendation may come to APO

in tandem with the faculty appointment case file, though they will be distinct from the faculty appointment

documents and specific to the proposed Chair. The Endowed Chair recommendation will be supported by the

additional faculty appointment documents (Statement of Research, letters of reference, etc.). The materials

required for the Endowed Chair recommendation will include:

• Case Analysis



of 137

• Transmittal Memo with Faculty vote

• Dean’s Recommendation


PAGE 134 OF 137

• Development Office document containing description and stipulations of the endowment

Endowed Chair appointments may also be made available to existing UC Merced faculty. The case file for such a

recommendation would include the four documents listed above as well as:

• Current Curriculum Vitae

• Self-Statement describing the alignment of candidate’s research interests with the Endowed Chair

The file will be submitted by APO to CAP for recommendation, and then to the Provost/EVC for consideration

and final decision. If the decision is a positive one, the appointment letter for the Chair will be issued separately

from the faculty appointment letter.

G. REAPPOINTMENT/RENEWAL PROCESS

The Dean of the relevant School, following consultation with the Development Office to verify continued

funding, the appropriate Unit Chair, and the Endowed Chairholder, will make a decision whether to

recommend reappointment of the incumbent to the Endowed Chair or to seek a new Chairholder. If the

recommendation is for reappointment, a case file with the following documents will be prepared and submitted,

no later than April 1, to APO which will forward it to CAP for recommendation and then to the Provost/EVC for

consideration and final decision:

• Self-Statement, including analytical description of accomplishments during the previous period

• Case Analysis

• Transmittal Memo with Faculty Vote

• Dean’s Recommendation

• Current Curriculum Vitae

• Biobibliography for the previous four-year period

• Development Office document containing description and stipulations of the endowment

• Materials such as publications and creative works may be submitted. These should be dated from the

four-year period in which the Chair has been held, and may include “new” materials (i.e., those not yet

administratively reviewed as part of a regular faculty review). Such “new” materials will be allowed to

“count” in any upcoming faculty reviews as appropriate to the academic review process.

Should the need to renew an Endowed Chair appointment happen to coincide with the Chairholder’s faculty

advancement review, these shall be treated as entirely separate actions and two distinct case files shall be

prepared.

If the recommendation is for non-reappointment of the incumbent, the Dean will provide written notice, with

copies to the Provost/EVC and APO, to the faculty member notifying him or her of the reasons for not seeking

reappointment (limitations of funding, service limits imposed by the endowment agreement, performance

issues, diversity concerns, etc.).

If a new Chairholder is to be sought, the processes under “Appointment Process” above shall be followed.

of 137

LADDER-RANK FACULTY AND OTHER ACADEMIC SENATE TITLES MAPP 6002 DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR

PAGE 136 OF 137

Consistent with the University’s goal of recognizing outstanding Senate faculty in the Professorial series, and in

view of parallel practices on other UC campuses, UC Merced has established the title of “Distinguished

Professor” for faculty members in the Professorial series who have achieved the highest level of scholarship.

These are scholars whose work has been internationally recognized and acclaimed and whose teaching

performance is excellent. The title “Distinguished Professor” is the highest campus-level faculty title.

Because the requirements for this Professorship are the same as those needed to advance to Above Scale (APM 220-18.b.4), this title will be conferred by the Chancellor on all faculty members in the Professorial series at the

time that they advance to Above Scale.

Faculty members who hold this title at the time they retire from UC Merced will be eligible to use the title

“Distinguished Professor, emeritus/a.”

As this title is an honorific, it does not have a payroll title code and therefore cannot be used on legal documents

such as contract and grant applications that require an “official” title. The title, “Distinguished Professor of X”

may be included, however, in the honors/awards sections of Bio-bibliographies, curriculum vitae, and

biosketches as well as in correspondence.



LADDER-RANK FACULTY AND OTHER ACADEMIC SENATE TITLES MAPP 6003 CHANCELLOR’S PROFESSOR

PAGE 137 OF 137

The title “Chancellor’s Professor” is intended for individuals who have earned the title of Professor and who

have demonstrated exceptional academic merit and whose continued promise for scholarly achievement is

unusually high. Chancellor’s Professors are faculty members who have achieved acclaim for their

accomplishments and who are likely to continue producing notable achievements in scholarship. The total

number of Chancellor’s Professors on the UC Merced campus, excluding emeritus faculty, must not exceed 3%

of the filled faculty lines.

Appointments to the title Chancellor’s Professor must be reviewed by the Committee on Academic Personnel

(CAP) and thus shall be made in accordance with regularly established procedures for faculty appointments

(MAPP 2013). Such appointments may be initiated in conjunction with an appointment or advancement case, or

during any normal review cycle. Chancellor’s Professor appointments are to be made for five-year renewable

terms, subject to review and recommendation of the Dean to the Provost/EVC.